export_field_names

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the checkbox field name transformation with examples and specifies the return structure (JSON array of objects). It implies a safe read-only operation through 'export' and 'list', and provides solid behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, details, Args, and Returns. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameter, and return format. While it doesn't mention errors or behavior for non-checkbox fields, these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 single parameter 'field' is fully described: 'Filter to a specific field name. None returns all fields.' This adds meaning absent from the schema (which has no property descriptions). The description effectively compensates for the 0% schema 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: exporting a list of export field names for the project. It adds specific scope (project) and details about checkbox field naming conventions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_records or get_metadata, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to resolve the correct names before exporting or referencing checkbox data.' It provides clear context but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools by name.

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