Export Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is JSON payloads for GitHub/Jira, which is useful behavioral context not present in the annotations or schema.

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 front-loads the action and output format with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple read-only export with two optional parameters, strong annotations, and a fully self-describing schema, the description provides sufficient context. It states the output type (JSON payloads) and target formats, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the format values by naming GitHub/Jira, but it does not add meaningful detail about the 'project' parameter beyond the schema's 'Optional project identifier.'

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a clear object ('tasks and blockers'), and the output form ('external issue tracker JSON payloads'), naming GitHub Issues and Jira. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_graph and import_issues.

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 clearly implies the tool is for exporting tasks/blockers to external issue trackers (GitHub/Jira), giving the user context for when to choose it. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives like import_issues, but the target use case is unambiguous.

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