export_mission

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states that the tool returns file content as text, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the mission is modified) or behavior on missing missions. The lack of idempotency or read-only hints leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentences: the first clearly states the action and output, the second lists formats and provides an alternative tool reference. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 low complexity (2 params, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, its output type, and supported formats. Missing error handling or expected response structure, but adequate for a straightforward export tool.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds human-readable format names (e.g., 'Google Earth' for kml), but this adds only marginal value beyond the schema's enum listing.

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 ('mission to a flight controller format'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like import_litchi. It lists supported formats explicitly, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 directs users to import_litchi for importing Litchi CSV files, providing a clear when-not-to-use scenario. However, it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., mission must exist) or broader context for when this tool is preferred over other export methods.

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