export_repeating_instruments_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions the version dependency, the error behavior on older instances, and the return format, including the empty-array case when no repeating instruments/events exist. This goes beyond a simple 'export' statement and provides useful operational context.

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 three concise sentences, each delivering essential information: the action, a version caveat, and the return behavior. There is no redundant wording or padding, and the most important fact (what it exports) is front-loaded.

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 stateless export with no parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the expected output format, the empty case, and the version constraint. The existence of an output schema means the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and it adds the necessary nuance about older RedCap instances.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and there is no additional burden to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 action ('Export') and the specific resource ('repeating instruments and events configuration'). The verb 'export' distinguishes it from the sibling 'import_repeating_instruments_events', and the resource is precise enough to differentiate it from other export tools like 'export_records' or 'export_arms'.

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 a clear usage context by noting the REDCap version requirement and the error on older instances. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'get_instrument_event_mappings', which may also relate to repeating instrument/event data. There is implicit guidance but no explicit exclusions.

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