export_user_games

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. 'Export' implies a read operation that might generate output, but the description doesn't specify what 'export' entails (e.g., file download, data return, format), whether it's rate-limited, requires authentication, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 20 parameters.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a tool where parameter details are handled in the schema.

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 complex tool with 20 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'export' returns (e.g., file, JSON, PGN), any behavioral constraints, or usage context. With no annotations and rich parameters, the description should provide more operational guidance to be complete.

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 20 parameters with descriptions, enums, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying a user scope, which is already covered by the 'username' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 'Export all games of a user' clearly states the verb ('Export') and resource ('games of a user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'export_game' (single game) and 'export_games_by_ids' (specific IDs), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'export_ongoing_game' or other export tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'export_game', 'export_games_by_ids', or 'export_ongoing_game', nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.

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