export_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the core behaviors: writes a file in CSV or JSON and returns its path. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing files are overwritten, how dest_dir is resolved, or any permission or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every word adds value, and the purpose statement is immediately clear.

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 is simple, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits parameter details and alternative usage guidance, leaving some context gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at fmt via "CSV or JSON". The required parameter `name` is ambiguous (table name vs. output filename), and `dest_dir` is entirely unexplained. The description does not add enough meaning beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Export a result table to a file on disk as CSV or JSON, and return its path." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling table tools like get_table or query_table, which return data rather than write it to disk.

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 "Use this to hand data to a spreadsheet or another tool" provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended use case is clearly communicated.

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