export_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the read-only guarantee ('the workbook never changes'), target safety guards (never source workbook, extensions, or backups), overwrite refusal with a timestamped .bak side-effect, and the fact that the result reports the values mode used. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure beyond name and schema.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause earns its place by adding a distinct behavior, constraint, or alternative reference; there is no filler or repetition of obvious facts.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, the description provides all key guard rails (target protections, overwrite semantics, read-only behavior) and output mode details, and an output schema exists to cover return shape. Minor ambiguity remains around what path refers to precisely and the effect of header/records, but nothing blocks a correct first call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the non-obvious parameters well: location's default ('sheet's true used range' and '{table}'), the values enum ('cached | formula | both'), out_file's inline-versus-file behavior, and overwrite's backup side-effect. However, header, records, path, and sheet receive little or no parameter-level elaboration, keeping it just short of 5.

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 the specific verb 'export', the exact resource ('a range, table, or sheet'), and the target formats (CSV, TSV, JSON). It clearly differentiates from the mostly read/write/format siblings and even mentions export_file as the multi-sheet counterpart.

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?

Explicitly directs multi-sheet exports to the alternative ('Multi-sheet export is export_file (io pack)'), giving a condition that routes the agent. It also clarifies when output returns inline versus to a file, though it does not enumerate all contexts where this tool should not be used.

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