apidog_export_markdown

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions grouping behavior but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, whether authentication or project context is required, or whether the output is returned inline or as a file. 'Export' implies a safe operation but does not explicitly rule out modifying data.

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 two sentences and immediately states the core action and format. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second describes grouping behavior and use case. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having four parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the basic export action and grouping. It does not explain what the output looks like, how includeSchemas changes the result, or what happens when project is required. This leaves the agent without enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior, especially given the lack of behavioral annotations and output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the 'group by folder or tag' behavior already documented in the groupBy parameter. It does not explain the module, project, or includeSchemas parameters further.

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 module documentation as Markdown.' It also specifies a key behavior ('Groups endpoints by folder or tag'), which distinguishes it from sibling export tools like apidog_export_curl and apidog_export_postman. The verb 'export' plus resource 'module documentation' and format 'Markdown' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Suitable for README or docs sites' provides some usage context, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison. This is only implied usage guidance, not explicit guidance.

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