Export project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds substantial behavior: unresolved placements are reported rather than silently dropped, placeholder emission is opt-in, prerequisite-dependent targets return the full ordered bundle, and large files are truncated in the reply. This is meaningful context beyond the structured 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 three dense sentences with no wasteful repetition. The first sentence establishes purpose and main output, the second covers a key edge case, and the third addresses truncation. Every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes responsibility for describing return values: file content, unresolved placements, warnings, bundle ordering, and truncation. Combined with full schema coverage of the six parameters, an agent has enough context to 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?

All six parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that placeholders=true causes unmapped device types to be emitted as placeholders while the default still reports them, and it gives concrete format examples. This exceeds baseline without duplicating the schema.

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 and resource ('Export a project') and clarifies it produces downstream formats while pointing to list_export_formats for the format ids. This clearly distinguishes it from get_project or list_projects, which retrieve project data rather than exporting artefacts.

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 names the relevant helper tools (list_export_formats and list_orgs) and implicitly states the use case: export a saved or inline project into an importable format. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough relative to sibling tools.

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