Preview exact export plan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns stable results, includes warnings, and does not perform a bulk render. It also mentions a 'page of the manifest', implying pagination behavior. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the key output types and the critical 'without bulk render' qualifier. No wasted words; every phrase adds meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not detail return fields. It covers the essential purpose, key outputs, and performance implication. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but for a preview tool with a clear plan_id input, this is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not explicitly mention plan_id, cursor, or page_size, though it hints at pagination via 'page of the manifest' and plan identification via 'plan'. Standard pagination terms are self-explanatory to some agents, but given zero schema documentation, the description is insufficient for fully understanding parameter roles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'export plan preview' with specific outputs: stable count/order/naming/destination/warnings plus a page of the manifest. It explicitly contrasts with 'without bulk render', distinguishing it from execution tools like execute_export_plan. This is specific and differentiates from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is a lightweight preview operation ('without bulk render') and is likely used before confirming or executing a plan. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., get_export_status or confirm_export_plan) or state when NOT to use it. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.