Export Entries

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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the supported formats but does not describe data scope, filtering behavior, authorization needs, or whether export returns content versus a file.

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 with no filler. It is concise and wastes no words, even though it is under-informative for the tool's full parameter surface.

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?

Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to explain return values, the tool has 8 optional filtering parameters and low schema coverage. The description covers only output formats and leaves the agent without guidance on the remaining filters and export scope.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters. The description only mentions the format choice and does not compensate for undocumented parameters such as tags, start_date, end_date, entry_types, limit, workspace_id, or project_number.

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 specific verb and resource: export journal entries. It also names the supported output formats, but it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as export_markdown or team_export_entries.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus export_markdown, backup_journal, or search_entries. The export verb implies usage, but the description provides no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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