export_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the default behavior when arms is None and specifies the return format. Though it doesn't explicitly state the operation is read-only, 'Export' strongly implies it. The description omits potential edge cases like invalid arm numbers, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear purpose sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a function, and the format is easy to scan.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how the parameter works, and what it returns. While it doesn't mention permissions or edge cases, the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema make this adequate.

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 explanation of the arms parameter adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type and default. It clarifies that None exports all arms, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 events for a longitudinal REDCap project' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like import_events and export_arms. The focus on events and export makes the purpose 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 provides context about longitudinal projects and the arms filter, implying when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as import_events or export_arms. No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, so usage is implied rather than explicitly directed.

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