catalog_portable_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the export is sanitized and omits local paths, plugin state, binaries, and licenses. However, it does not explain whether the operation writes a file, returns data, is asynchronous, or has any side effects or prerequisites.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. It conveys the core operation and key constraints in the most economical way possible.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter, the description is insufficient for confident invocation. The content exclusions are helpful, but the missing job_id semantics and lack of operational context such as output format or side effects leave important gaps.

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 only parameter, job_id, is completely absent from the description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The schema only provides a string pattern with no semantic meaning, so an agent cannot determine whether job_id is needed, what it refers to, or how it affects the export.

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 ('Export') and resource ('sanitized metadata catalog'), and explicitly defines scope by excluding installation paths, plugin state, binaries, and licenses. This clearly distinguishes it from generic export or catalog siblings such as export_project, bundle_export, or catalog_inventory.

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 phrase 'portable' and the exclusion list convey a clear use case: creating a shareable, sanitized metadata catalog without machine-specific artifacts. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this tool, so the guidance is contextual but not explicit.

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