export_game

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., file download vs. inline data).

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Export one game') and adds essential detail ('in PGN or JSON format'). Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship between PGN/JSON formats and parameters (e.g., how 'pgnInJson' works), output behavior, or error handling. More context is needed given the complexity.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'gameId' is required and format options. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Export') and resource ('one game'), and specifies output formats ('PGN or JSON format'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'export_games_by_ids' (multiple games) and 'export_user_games' (user-specific). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'export_ongoing_game' (ongoing vs. any game).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_games_by_ids' or 'export_ongoing_game'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid game ID) or exclusions (e.g., not for ongoing games).

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