export_all_formats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says exports are 'started' but does not mention whether the operation is asynchronous, how many jobs are created, what side effects occur, whether setup is required, or how results are retrieved. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with the action and object front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy. However, it is so terse that it omits important contextual and parameter information, preventing a perfect score.

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 five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a rich sibling landscape, the description is far too thin. It gives the basic action but not enough context about job handling, format specification, or how this relates to the many export-related sibling tools. Some context exists, but significant gaps remain.

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% and none of the five parameters are explained. The description does not clarify the expected format of questionnaire_identity, the accepted values in export_types, the role of profile, output_dir, or interview_status. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Start exports for one questionnaire in multiple formats.' It clearly identifies the tool as initiating multi-format exports for a single questionnaire, which distinguishes it from broader sibling tools that combine versions or formats. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_and_combine_all_versions_all_formats or start_export. The phrase 'one questionnaire' implies a scope constraint, but there are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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