export_saved_objects

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, it reveals that the action creates an NDJSON file on the server, that only a summary and opaque handle are returned, and that readable content is bounded by API key privileges. These are behavioral facts not present in annotations, and no contradiction exists.

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 fits four sentences with the primary behavior and handle semantics first, followed by constraints, security caveat, and space. No sentence is redundant or tangential.

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 moderately complex export tool with an output schema, the description covers the workflow, selection constraints, security boundary, and relationship to import_saved_objects. Only include_references_deep is not explicitly discussed, so it is nearly complete.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains the main parameters: types/objects exclusivity, wildcard use, and space default. It leaves include_references_deep unmentioned, which is a minor gap given the schema provides no description.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Export saved objects ... as an NDJSON file on the server.' It also clarifies the return value is a summary plus an opaque handle rather than content, which clearly differentiates this from import_saved_objects and read-only dashboard/data-view 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?

It provides explicit usage constraints: 'Select EITHER types ... OR objects ... not both,' and explains the space parameter's default. It doesn't enumerate when-not cases against sibling tools, but the workflow context is clear enough.

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