export_project_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states what is never exported (secrets, credentials, billing, etc.), which is crucial for trust. It also notes that the tool can wait for readiness and write to a local path, revealing key behaviors beyond the schema.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences. The first sentence defines the core purpose, and the second adds two critical behavioral notes. No redundant or verbose language.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key aspects (what is exported, what is not, waiting/writing) but omits the return value when output_path is not set, and does not mention idempotency or error handling. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the archive format (.r402ar), the runtime slice, and the relationship between wait, output_path, and readiness. This enhances understanding of parameters like scope, output_path, and wait.

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 it exports a 'Run402 Core runtime slice' as a '.r402ar' archive. The verb 'Export' and resource are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like import_project_archive or inspect_project_archive, which share a similar domain.

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 implies usage for exporting archives but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., import_project_archive, verify_project_archive). It also lacks prerequisites or exclusions, such as whether the project must exist or what happens on failure.

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