export_packageExports a Smalltalk package from a local Pharo or Squeak image into Tonel format at a chosen path, enabling version control and package sharing.
Export a package in Tonel format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | The path where to export the package | /tmp |
| package_name | Yes | The name of the package to export |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotence, and the description adds the useful detail that output uses Tonel format. However, it does not disclose potential filesystem side effects such as writing to the provided path, overwriting existing files, or requiring the directory to exist.
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 single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the operation and format with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.
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 is simple, all parameters are documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so an agent has enough information to call it correctly. The main gaps are the lack of usage guidance and filesystem behavior details, but these are minor given the low complexity and rich schema.
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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described and a default for path, so the baseline score applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the input 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 states a precise action ('Export a package') and the specific output format ('Tonel format'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools such as import_package or list_packages. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does without needing to inspect the schema.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like import_package or list_packages. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided; usage must be inferred entirely from the brief one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.