bookstack_chapters_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the export action and formats but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output looks like (e.g., file download, content string), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly listing formats). It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks depth.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output (e.g., whether it returns a file, URL, or content), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For an export tool with potential complexity (e.g., large chapters, format-specific behaviors), this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters (id and format with enum). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what a 'chapter ID' is or provide context for format choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Export') and resource ('a chapter and all its pages'), specifying the output formats. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bookstack_chapters_list' or 'bookstack_chapters_read' by focusing on export functionality, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar export tools like 'bookstack_books_export' or 'bookstack_pages_export'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the chapter ID), compare with other export tools (e.g., 'bookstack_books_export'), or specify use cases like backup or sharing. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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