export_arms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the default behavior ('None exports all arms') and the return format ('JSON array of arms with arm_num and name fields'), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, though 'export' implies it.

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 concise with clear Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence, and contains no superfluous content.

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 simple 1-parameter export tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter behavior, return format, and project context ('longitudinal'), making it complete for agent selection and invocation.

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 schema provides zero description coverage for the 'arms' parameter, but the description fully explains it: 'Specific arm numbers to export. None exports all arms.' This adds essential semantics beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 states 'Export arms for a longitudinal REDCap project' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like import_arms and delete_arms. The word 'arms' and 'export' make the action unambiguous.

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 retrieving arms but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like export_events or import_arms. Context is clear but no exclusions or alternative mentions are given.

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