Export Spec

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 known. The description adds context about what is exported (spec node and child requirements) and the output formats (clean Markdown or Gherkin), which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the tool returns text, writes to a file, or any other behavioral details, so some key traits remain unclear beyond the 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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Export'), specifies the resource, and includes the output formats. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema) and strong annotations (read-only, non-destructive), the description is largely complete. It clearly explains what is exported and in which formats, but it omits whether the result is returned directly or saved somewhere, which would be helpful given there is no output schema. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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%, with each parameter (format, project, spec_id) having a meaningful description. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Export a graph-managed specification node and child requirements back to clean Markdown or Gherkin text.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_issues and export_graph by specifying both the scope (spec node and child requirements) and the output formats (Markdown or Gherkin).

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: use this to export a specification node with its child requirements to Markdown or Gherkin. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like export_graph or export_issues, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions for use, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between similar export tools.

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