pdf_export

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the output location ('Saves the HTML to rc-method/exports/') and the two-step user process (open in browser, print to PDF). It does not mention overwriting or error behavior, but the key side effect and workflow are disclosed.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value—purpose, mechanism, workflow, file support, and output location. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, how to use it, where it saves output, and what input files it accepts. Minor gaps like error handling and exact overwrite behavior are not addressed, but the description is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 100%, so parameters are already fully documented. The description adds context about output styling and supported file types but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The baseline of 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting, and this is the case here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export project artifacts as a professional, print-ready HTML document.' It further clarifies it converts markdown files into styled HTML with cover page and print rules, making the tool's function unmistakable and distinct from sibling process/status tools.

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 description provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'Supports any markdown file in the project (PRDs, playbook, design briefs, reports)' and explains the browser workflow (open HTML, Cmd+P / Ctrl+P). It implicitly covers usage scenarios but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Since no sibling tool competes with this export function, the guidance is adequate.

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