intent_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool exports to file formats but does not mention that it creates or overwrites files, the effect of the 'path' parameter default, or any side effects like filesystem modifications. This lack of detail for a file-writing operation is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant or superfluous 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?

While the tool is conceptually simple, the description does not clarify whether the export returns content or writes to a file, nor does it mention default paths. With no output schema, more explanation of the tool's effect and return value is needed. It provides basic completeness but leaves important details unspecified.

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 67%, which is moderate. The tool description ('Export an intent spec...') adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (format, spec structure, path). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries most of the load, but the description could elaborate on parameter usage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Export' and the resource 'intent spec', specifying target formats '.cursorrules or CLAUDE.md section'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'export_context' and 'intent_save', making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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 implies usage for exporting intent specs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_context'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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