media_pool_export_metadata

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions that it exports to a CSV file, but does not disclose whether an existing file at that path will be overwritten, whether directories are created, or how the 'current folder' is determined if the media pool has multiple folders. This is a significant gap for a tool that writes files.

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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the action and target. It contains no redundant information and is easy to parse. The front-loaded verb 'Export' effectively signals the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so the need for return-value documentation is reduced. However, the description lacks details about which metadata fields are included, whether subfolders are considered, and how errors (e.g., empty folder, invalid path) are handled. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for a tool operating within a larger media pool context.

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 schema already provides a complete description of the single parameter file_path, including an example path and the type (string). The description adds only the phrase 'CSV file', which is already implied by the schema's description. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional parameter context is provided.

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 action ('Export'), the object ('metadata of all clips in the current folder'), and the output format ('CSV file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like media_pool_get_clips or clip_get_metadata by specifying the batch export to a file.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for exporting metadata in bulk to a CSV, nor does it exclude scenarios like needing specific clip metadata individually. The context of 'current folder' is implicit but not framed as a selection criterion.

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