export_architect_section

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output is written to disk and consumes no context window, and gives the default destination path. It omits important mutation semantics such as whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the directory is created, and what is returned to the caller.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and format, then the disk/context benefit, then the default path. Every sentence carries information and none is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should be more complete for a write-to-disk operation. It covers destination and format but says nothing about overwrite behavior, error cases for an invalid section, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent partially informed.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the output_path default. The description restates the output_path default rather than adding new meaning (e.g. accepted path forms or failure behavior), so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (export), resource (all pages in a section), and output format (single concatenated markdown file written to disk). It does not name a sibling tool or draw an explicit contrast, though 'zero context window cost' implicitly distinguishes it from the read_* siblings.

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 'zero context window cost' implies this is the tool to reach for when you want documents on disk rather than in the conversation, which is implied usage guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over read_architect_page or get_section_summary, and no exclusions.

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