export

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

The description discloses important behavioral details such as default attachment inclusion, format dependencies, and disk-writing intent (savePath, outputDir). While annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds context on side effects and size limits. 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 front-loaded with purpose and organized by target, but it is somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence adds necessary detail for a 14-parameter tool with four modes. It is appropriately structured and not wasteful.

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 and lack of an output schema, the description covers all four targets, format compatibilities, defaults, and parameter usage. It lacks explicit mention of what the tool returns (e.g., file path or bytes), but it contextually implies file operations. Generally complete for the task.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description adds significant value by explaining parameter interactions (e.g., target-specific format enums, query shortcut, includeAttachments defaults), going well beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 'Export emails to file formats for archival, forensics, or programmatic processing,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read-email and attachments by focusing on file export rather than viewing or handling attachments.

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 detailed guidance on when to use each target (message, messages, conversation, mime) and explains defaults and alternatives (e.g., emailIds vs searchQuery). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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