glm_5_export_project_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context: exports are safe, exclude secrets and raw source files. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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?

Single sentence, lists content efficiently. No fluff, but could benefit from a bullet list or a note about parameters.

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?

Given 6 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits what each include flag does and the output format, making it hard for an agent to invoke 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?

All six boolean parameters are optional with no schema descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not mention any parameter, leaving the agent to guess what each include flag controls.

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 'export' and the resource 'safe persisted bridge state', listing examples of content. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like glm_5_import_project_state or inspect tools, relying on the verb difference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., when to export vs inspect or import. No prerequisites or context provided.

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