export-env

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that values are 'decrypted' (implying a security-sensitive operation) and returns 'full content', but doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, whether this exposes sensitive data, or if the export is downloadable vs. displayed. For a tool handling secrets, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating format options from the decryption note, and it lacks any preamble about security implications.

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 the tool's complexity (handling secrets with decryption, multiple formats, filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and the output format, but misses important context like security warnings, permission requirements, and how the output is delivered (e.g., file vs. text).

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (format with enum values, tags as object). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining tag filtering logic or format differences. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 tool exports secrets in specific formats (.env or CSV) with decrypted values, providing a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('secrets'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-secrets' or 'get-secret', which might offer different views of the same data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-secrets' (which might show metadata without decrypted values) or 'import-env' (the inverse operation). The description mentions filtering by tags, but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or what happens without it.

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