apidog_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output (full OpenAPI spec) and scope (per module), but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or the fact that includeExtensions defaults to true and affects output. Since it's an export, it is likely read-only, but no explicit statement is made.

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 clear sentence that states the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 full schema coverage, the description is adequate for an export tool. It lacks some behavioral context like whether it writes files or returns content, but the tool name and schema compensate. Output schema absence is mitigated by the simple export nature.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; default values for oasVersion and includeExtensions are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Export full OpenAPI spec for an Apidog module' clearly states the action (export), the resource (OpenAPI spec), and the target (Apidog module). It differentiates from siblings like apidog_export_curl, apidog_export_postman, and apidog_export_markdown by specifying the OpenAPI spec format, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies usage context for exporting OpenAPI specs, and the schema's project parameter clarifies 'Required when multiple projects are configured, optional otherwise.' However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling export tools like apidog_export_postman or apidog_export_curl.

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