export_pdf

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output format (base64-encoded PDF in JSON) and cautions about the all-records case. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, but the export verb implies it. This goes beyond a minimal description by adding relevant warnings and return type details.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the length is appropriate for five parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and maintains readability.

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?

Given the 5-parameter complexity and absence of annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics and the return format. It lacks explicit error handling or permission requirements, but for an export tool, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and defaults. It clarifies that None for record and instrument means 'all', and that event is longitudinal-only. This adds significant value over the bare schema types.

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 the tool exports a PDF of instruments for a record, distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_records or export_report. The verb 'Export' and specific resource 'PDF of instruments' make its 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 clear context on how to use the tool, including parameter-specific instructions like 'record: None exports all records (use with caution)' and 'event: Event name (longitudinal projects only)'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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