Export Page Artifact

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint false) and destructiveness (destructiveHint true). The description adds useful context: it writes into a specific root (DP_MCP_ARTIFACT_ROOT), returns a checksum and safe relative path (implying path safety), and promises exact-once receipt evidence, which is a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the core action and key outputs without wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

While the output schema may cover return values, the tool has 14 parameters and the description omits any context about parameter interactions, prerequisites, or use cases. It provides a minimal viable description but does not fully cover the complexity of the tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for the 14 parameters, but it only mentions 'PDF or MHTML' which maps to the format parameter. It does not explain scale, margins, page_ranges, paper dimensions, operation_key, or other options, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for most fields.

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's function: 'Generate one PDF or MHTML file under DP_MCP_ARTIFACT_ROOT' and specifies the return outputs (checksum, safe relative path, exact-once receipt evidence). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like page_screenshot or page_snapshot by focusing on durable artifact creation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as page_screenshot_save or page_snapshot. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to other export/save tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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