nucleo-site-export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (a map of JSON files) and that cross-document references are rendered as readable symbols like page:slug, though it says nothing about payload size, streaming, or failure modes.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first names the payload, the second explains reference resolution, which is the non-obvious part of the output. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source describing the return value, and it does name the file categories and reference notation. It stops short of stating anything about payload volume or how the map should be consumed on re-import, leaving a minor gap for a zero-param tool.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The schema's empty object with additionalProperties=false is consistent with the zero-argument behavior described.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Returns") with a clear resource (the site) and enumerates the exact payload (site.json, pages, posts, layouts, sections, rules), so the agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not differentiate from the inverse sibling nucleo-site-import, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word "Returns" and the export payload; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus nucleo-site-import or nucleo-site-describe, and no prerequisites or round-trip notes. An agent can infer it is the read/export side, but the definition leaves the routing to inference.

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