export_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return structure (Dict with success, format, content, item_count) and parameter overrides (item_ids overrides type/status filters), but it does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects, although exporting implies read-only behavior.

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 a structured list of parameters and a Returns line, containing no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for 11 parameters and clearly front-loads the tool's purpose.

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 all 11 parameters with meaningful semantics and explains the return dict, compensating for the lack of an output schema. It does not discuss error cases or edge behaviors, but for an export operation that is likely acceptable.

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 schema descriptions are minimal placeholders (e.g., 'limit parameter'), so the description adds essential meaning for every parameter, including format options, filter semantics, overrides, and defaults (e.g., limit default 500). This goes well beyond the schema and is vital for correct invocation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Export' with a clear resource ('project data') and output formats ('JSON, YAML, or Markdown'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve or modify individual items, making the function immediately understandable.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or references to sibling tools like project_summary or get_updates are given, so usage context is only implied by the export action.

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