Export to Markdown Files

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, write-to-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral detail beyond annotations: each file has YAML frontmatter with specific fields (mj_id, entry_type, tags, relationships) and supports an external-edit round-trip. It stops short of explaining overwrite semantics or output directory 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and format, then the file contents, then the round-trip use case. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema or annotation fields.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and the schema covers 88% of parameters, so the description need not explain return values or filters. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could briefly note target-directory behavior and how filters scope the export.

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 88%, so the schema already documents filters like tags, dates, limit, and output_dir, including an anti-hallucination hint for output_dir. The description does not add parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export journal entries') plus the exact output format ('individual frontmattered Markdown files (.md)'). The format implicitly differentiates it from export_entries, but no sibling is named, so it falls short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: files can be edited externally and re-imported via import_markdown, which tells the agent when this format is valuable. It does not explicitly contrast with export_entries or state when not to use this tool, so exclusions are absent.

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