export_ledger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job disclosing key behaviors: a publication check runs before writing, `out` is never overwritten, and `full` exports contain sensitive whole quotes that should be kept private. It does not cover permissions, error handling, or exactly what the publication check validates, keeping it from a 5.

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 dense but front-loaded: the core action and key constraints appear immediately, and each sentence adds behavioral detail. The sentence about `quote_focus` does not earn its place because that parameter is absent from the schema, but overall structure is efficient.

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?

The tool has six parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, so the description must do substantial work. It adequately covers the core output-level semantics and write-protection behavior, and an output schema exists to explain return values. Still, it omits meaning for `path`, `format`, and `include_withdrawn` and introduces a nonexistent parameter, leaving the definition only partially complete.

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 description adds useful semantics for `level` (masked, locator, full), `max_words` (only for masked, range 1–25), and `out` (never overwritten). However, with 0% schema description coverage, it leaves `path`, `format`, and `include_withdrawn` completely undocumented. Worse, it references a `quote_focus` parameter that does not exist in the schema, which is misleading.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export the ledger to a new file.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like summarize_ledger, validate_ledger, and create_ledger. It does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage guidance is implied through behavioral constraints: a `full` export 'holds whole quotes: keep it private,' and a publication check runs before writing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as summarize_ledger, nor are prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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