export_document

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait: the file extension selects the export filter, tying the destination path to the output format. It does not say whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the parent directory must exist, or what happens if the named document is not open.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and format-rich, followed by two short parameter lines with zero filler. The docstring-style 'Args:' block is slightly mechanical but every clause carries information.

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, so return values need not be described, and the format/parameter semantics are covered. For a two-parameter export tool the main remaining gap is failure behavior (missing document, unwritable path, overwrite policy), which is minor but non-trivial for a file-writing operation.

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, and it largely does: 'output_file' is explained as the destination whose extension picks the export filter, and 'document' is explained as a name, 1-based index, or "active" — detail the bare string schema does not convey. It falls short of full credit only because the index-vs-name resolution rules and the allowed extension set are not tied back to the specific parameter behavior.

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 an open Surfer document') and enumerates the six supported output formats, so the agent immediately knows what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling save_plot, which is the closest ambiguity, so it falls short of full 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?

The phrase 'an open Surfer document' implies the precondition that the document must already be open, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over save_plot or close_document, and no statement of an alternative path if the document is not open.

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