export_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON object with base64-encoded file content, filename, and content type') and parameter context, which adds useful behavioral information. It does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, but the verb 'export' implies that.

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: a one-sentence summary, a concise argument list, and a return value specification. Every line adds value, and the most critical information (purpose) is front-loaded. No unnecessary details.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return format. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values further. It also covers the optional nature of event and repeat_instance with contextual notes, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides explanations for all four parameters: record, field, event, and repeat_instance, going beyond the schema's type-only definitions. Each parameter gets a meaningful purpose statement, which is essential for correct usage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Export a file attachment from a REDCap record field.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_pdf or import_file by focusing on file upload fields, making it 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 clear context for when to use the tool, mentioning 'file upload field' and the optional event/repeat_instance parameters for longitudinal/repeating projects. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the context is sufficient for most cases.

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