export

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations, such as default values (includeAttachments defaults per target), format support variations, and parameter roles across targets. It does not mention potential side effects like file overwriting or required permissions, but the openWorldHint=true annotation is partially addressed by explaining file writing aspects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, then organized by target. While slightly verbose (repeating format lists), every sentence adds value. It could be more concise by avoiding redundancy, but it remains clear and scannable.

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 the tool's complexity (14 parameters, 0 required, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers parameter interactions, defaults, and target-specific behaviors comprehensively. It does not explain return values or error handling, but for an export tool focusing on file output, this is acceptable. The description is largely 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the 100% schema coverage by tying parameters to specific targets (e.g., id required for message/mime, outputDir for messages/conversation), explaining shortcuts like query, and clarifying format compatibility. It provides cohesive context that the schema's individual descriptions lack, elevating it above the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Export emails to file formats for archival, forensics, or programmatic processing.' It breaks down four distinct targets (message, messages, conversation, mime) with specific behaviors, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read-email or send-email. The verb 'export' and resource 'emails' are explicit, and the scope is well-defined.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (archival, forensics, processing) and explains each target's use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though sibling tools like 'attachments' or 'read-email' are distinct. The absence of exclusions or direct comparisons prevents a score of 5.

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