export_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors such as default limit of 1000, raw vs label value representations, checkbox label export behavior, and the JSON return format. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or pagination beyond the limit.

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 efficiently structured with an Args section listing each parameter on its own line and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, providing necessary details without fluff or repetition.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no annotations, but the description covers all parameters and return format. It is largely complete for selection and invocation. However, it does not differentiate from similar export tools (export_report, export_file) in the sibling list, which a complete description might address.

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 purpose and special semantics (e.g., None exports all fields/records, events only for longitudinal projects, raw_or_label choices, checkbox label behavior). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 'Export records from the REDCap project', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like import_records and delete_records, and the return format is specified.

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 through parameter explanations and the export purpose, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_report or export_file. No exclusions are stated, but the context is strong.

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