export_okf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output shape (markdown with frontmatter, one file per node), which is real value, but never states whether the operation is read-only, whether it produces side effects or writes anywhere, or how the bundle is delivered (download, path, etc.).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence led by the verb, with the artifact description in the middle and the usage/contrast clause last. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, so the description is the only source of truth. It explains the file format well but omits how the export is returned to the caller and what projectId selects, leaving gaps an agent would need filled before invoking.

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?

There is one parameter, projectId, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it — 'the whole plan' leaves it unclear that projectId scopes which plan is exported. The description adds output-format meaning but does not compensate for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb (Serialize), resource (the whole plan) and artifact (portable OKF file bundle, markdown with frontmatter, one file per node). The closing contrast 'rather than as JSON' implicitly separates it from the JSON-returning siblings like get_tree, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Use when you want the plan as files — for a repo, a diff, or handing it to a tool that reads markdown — rather than as JSON' gives a clear selection condition and a contrasting alternative format. It stops short of naming the concrete sibling tool an agent should call instead when JSON is wanted, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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