Export tokens in a build format

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context: all outputs are generated from one source, so primitive changes propagate to every format. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not describe response mechanics or edge cases.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second explains a meaningful generation guarantee. Every sentence earns its place.

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 schema covers both parameters and the read-only annotation is present, so most calling context is complete. The description communicates the core behavior and output purpose, but because there is no output schema, an explicit statement of what the tool returns would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already thoroughly explains each format enum value and the theme restriction for json. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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, 'Emit', and a clear resource, 'the full token set', and the title adds 'in a build format'. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_tokens or get_primitives because it emphasizes producing full-token build artifacts, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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 does not state when to use export_tokens versus alternatives such as get_tokens or get_primitives. It implies 'use this to emit the full token set', but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or guidance about which tool to prefer for inspection versus build output.

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