tool_export

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it states that grants are not included, that the output is a zip on the local machine, and that the index.json checksums make differential comparison possible. It does not detail overwrite behavior or return values, but these are minor for a backup/export tool.

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 every sentence earns its place: the first defines action and scope, the second records an important exclusion, and the third explains the comparison workflow with index.json. It is not as minimal as possible, but the extra detail is genuinely useful rather than filler.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers what is backed up, what is excluded, where the output goes by default, and how the backup can be used later to identify only changed files.

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 fully documents the single optional `file` parameter, including its default. The description itself repeats the destination concept ('into one zip on this machine') but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Back up the AI tools of this store into one zip on this machine.' It enumerates exactly what is included (registry tree, commands, fields, modules, manifests, libraries) and what is excluded (grants), making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among many sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear context: the tool is for creating a backup and later comparing it after tool updates, with index.json checksums enabling selective reading of differences. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool is obviously an export/backup tool, so explicit exclusions are less necessary.

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