workspace_export_reference_expansion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behavioral traits: no client file writes and no network usage, which are useful. However, it doesn't explain other behaviors like the effect of the format parameter, error handling, or server-side side effects. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 one sentence, which is concise and front-loads the core action. It is efficient in word count, but it omits essential details, making it borderline under-specified. The structure is clean, but the trade-off between brevity and completeness is not optimal.

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 2 parameters (one required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify what run_id refers to, what the default format is, or what the return value looks like. An agent would have to rely heavily on inference or trial and error.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints at format ('JSON or Markdown') but does not explain the required run_id parameter at all. The agent cannot determine what run_id refers to or how to supply it correctly from the description.

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 clear verb (Return) and object (saved JSON or Markdown), but 'saved' is ambiguous and it doesn't explicitly tie to 'reference expansion' beyond the tool name. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like workspace_get_reference_expansion, which could also return a reference expansion. The action is clear but the scope is vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like workspace_get_reference_expansion. The description is purely functional with no usage direction.

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