apidog_export_postman

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It details the output format (folder structure, placeholder values) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The term 'convert' is ambiguous regarding whether it modifies the source module.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise and contains no filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description is minimal. It lacks context about prerequisites, output format details, or how 'placeholder values' relate to parameters. However, for a simple export tool it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (module, baseUrl, project) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning; it only reinforces 'placeholder values' which aligns with the baseUrl default. Thus the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'module to a Postman Collection v2.1 format', with additional detail about folder structure and placeholder values. This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like apidog_export_curl and apidog_export_markdown.

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 for exporting to Postman format but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as apidog_export_curl or apidog_export_markdown. There are no exclusions or alternative guidance, though the context makes the intended use fairly clear.

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