Export Document

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

Annotations only signal readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows the world may change but not how. The description adds no behavioral context: it does not disclose that exports are typically asynchronous job operations, may consume credits, produce downloadable files, or have side effects. No contradiction with annotations, but the description does nothing beyond restating the 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?

Eight words, zero fluff, and the key action is front-loaded. The sentence is efficiently structured, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness.

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 37-parameter tool with no output schema and no enums, this description is severely incomplete. The agent gets no help choosing among the many overlapping format flags, no awareness of surprising defaults (doWriteMets=true, doWriteImages=true, doExportAltoXml=true, doExportPageXml=true), and no indication of what the export call returns.

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 baseline of 3 applies — every parameter has at least a terse description in the schema. The tool description adds nothing to parameter understanding; critically, it fails to clarify how the 'format' string relates to the doWrite* boolean flags, which is the main semantic ambiguity an agent would face.

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 states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('a document'), which clearly communicates the tool's core operation and implicitly separates it from the sibling transkribus_coll_export (collection vs. document export). However, 'in the specified format' is vague — the tool actually supports many formats controlled by overlapping boolean flags and a format string — and no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings (transkribus_coll_export, transkribus_doc_get_mets, transkribus_upload_create_from_mets). No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing information is provided, which is a significant gap given the large sibling list.

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