Exportă tot conținutul

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it lists the export scope and explicitly notes that images are downloaded separately from their addresses, which is not inferable from the structured fields.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('All content, for a backup') and then enumerates the included items without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only export operation, the description is essentially complete: it states purpose, content scope, and the separate handling of images. It does not describe the output format or delivery mechanism, but no output schema exists and the absence of parameters lowers the burden.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema leaves no gaps. The description does not need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on what the export contains.

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 uses a specific verb ('Exportă') and resource ('tot conținutul'), then enumerates exactly what is included: site identity, full pages and articles with drafts, redirects, and an image list with fingerprints. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like listeaza, publica, or salveaza.

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 'pentru o copie de siguranță' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the backup purpose is enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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