export_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the default output directory, the JUDIKATURA_MCP_EXPORT_DIR override, and the default filename scheme, but omits overwrite behavior, permission requirements, and error conditions for what is a filesystem write.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, and the remaining text is compact per-parameter explanation with no filler. Structure is efficient, though the inline 'param: meaning' style is dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the non-obvious parameters well. The main gap is the undocumented required uuid_or_ecli input and any failure/overwrite behavior.

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, and it largely does: it enumerates format values ('docx' | 'txt'), explains out_dir's default and env-var fallback, and defines filename as extensionless with a default of court code + case number. Only the required uuid_or_ecli parameter is left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Uloží plný text rozhodnutí jako soubor' – saves the full text of a decision as a file), which clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_decision or search_decisions. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead or when this differs from plain retrieval, so it's clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference alternatives such as get_decision. It functions almost entirely as parameter documentation rather than usage routing.

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