export_excel

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool builds from the .raw.jsonl resume ledger, can run mid-collection, and creates the xlsx alongside the CSV by default. It does not mention overwrite behavior or error cases, but the provided context is substantial for an export tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by use-case context, source behavior, and an Args section. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance without redundant repetition of the schema.

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 description covers the primary use cases, data source, and all parameter semantics, which is sufficient for an export tool without an output schema. Minor ambiguity remains about precedence if both job_id and csv_path are provided, and what happens when all parameters are empty.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: job_id is the start_collection work id, csv_path can substitute for job_id, and out_path controls the .xlsx save location with a default behavior when empty. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 re-extracts collection results into Excel (.xlsx), with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from the automatic Excel generation that happens on normal collection completion, and from sibling tools like cancel_collection and start_collection.

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 explicitly defines when to use the tool: when auto-generation did not occur, when a collection was interrupted by cancel_collection, when regenerating old data in the current format, or during collection to get partial results. It implies it is unnecessary when collection completes normally, giving a when-not condition.

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