Export tokens in a build format

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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already establish a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds the useful property that all outputs derive from a single source, so changes propagate consistently. It doesn't disclose response size or format details beyond what the schema provides, but with annotations, this is adequate.

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 sentences, tightly packed. The first sentence gives the core action, the second adds the single-source propagation behavior. No unnecessary words.

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's complexity (11 formats, theme constraints) is mostly handled by the exhaustive format descriptions in the schema. The description adds the single-source consistency fact, which is useful context. However, the description doesn't explicitly state the output type (e.g., string content vs file download), but given the format descriptions, this is a minor gap. For a tool with no output schema, this is sufficient.

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% with detailed per-param descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no semantic information about the parameters themselves; the 'full token set' line is a property of the tool, not of any specific parameter.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope ('Emit the full token set in a consumable format'). Distinguishes from siblings like get_tokens and get_primitives by focusing on export/build format, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies usage for generating distributable token artifacts but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are named. The schema's format descriptions offer some context, but the description itself doesn't state when to prefer export_tokens over get_tokens or inspect siblings.

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