export_chain

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what the tool returns (content, sha256, suggested filename), which sets expectations for a read/export operation. It does not explicitly state that nothing is mutated, but 'export' and the return payload imply a snapshot operation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: one for the export purpose and return values, one for the import workflow, one for the scope edge case. No filler.

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 read-only export with two simple parameters, the description covers the return format, the import counterpart, and the only tricky parameter (scope ambiguity). With no annotations and no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 explain the parameters. It does explain the scope parameter's disambiguating purpose and makes 'name' obvious as the chain identifier from context. It does not describe the name format, but that is low-risk.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (a chain's raw Markdown source) and the purpose (for sharing). The mention of return values (content, sha256, suggested filename) distinguishes it from siblings like run_chain or advance_chain.

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?

Explicitly says to call save_chain with the content when importing a shared chain, which is an clear alternative. It also gives a concrete condition for when to pass scope: 'If the name exists in both global and project scope.'

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