emacs_org_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention that export likely writes output files, where those files go, whether existing files may be overwritten, or that async execution is possible. This is a significant transparency gap for an operation with side effects.

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 one crisp sentence with no filler and gets straight to the operation and target. It is slightly underspecified, but that is more a completeness concern than a conciseness problem.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully prepare an agent. Missing context includes output file behavior, default destination semantics, whether async is recommended, and failure modes for invalid buffers or formats.

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 100%, so the schema already documents buffer, format, output_path, and async. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('org document'), and the operation is clearly distinct from sibling org tools like emacs_org_write or emacs_org_read. 'Various formats' is vague on its own, but the schema enum fills that gap with concrete supported formats.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist (e.g., buffer loaded, file saved), or when another sibling like emacs_org_write or emacs_file_save would be more appropriate. The description simply states the operation without contextual direction.

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