export_mission

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It states the output is 'the file content as text', which implies no side effects. However, it does not disclose whether the export is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the mission doesn't exist. A readOnlyHint would be helpful, but is not contradicted.

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 concise with two sentences covering purpose, output, and supported formats. It also explicitly references import_litchi for the opposite operation. While efficient, the first sentence could be slightly clearer by specifying 'returns the file content as plain text' up front.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequately complete. It explains the output format and distinguishes from a sibling tool. Missing details like assumed coordinate systems or size limits are not critical for correct invocation.

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 input schema already defines all parameters with clear descriptions (mission_id as UUID, format with enum list). The description adds context by explaining that the return value is file content text, which helps the agent understand what to expect when invoking. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value beyond the 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 action ('Export a mission') and the target ('to a flight controller format'). It specifies the output as file content in text, and lists each supported format with examples. This distinguishes it well from siblings like import_litchi, which is explicitly mentioned as the tool for importing.

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 explains when to use this tool (to export missions) and contrasts it with import_litchi for importing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives for other operations, but the sibling list includes many other mission-related tools, and the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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