export_chunks

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

No annotations provided; description only indicates a read-like export operation. Does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether data is altered. Should explicitly note it is non-destructive.

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 clear paragraphs: one-line purpose then bulleted parameters. No wasted words. Could integrate parameter descriptions more concisely but overall 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?

Covers two parameters adequately but lacks description of output format beyond 'JSON compatible with enrich-nodes.js'. No mention of pagination, limits, or error states. With no annotations, more detail on behavior would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds valuable meaning: 'Optional project filter' and enumerates confidence levels (seed, watered, sprouted) with default. However, could clarify format or valid values for project.

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?

Clearly states verb (export) and resource (verified chunks), and specifies output format compatibility with enrich-nodes.js, distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_chunk.

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?

No guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like mark_reviewed or get_review_queue. Only describes optional parameters but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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