List export formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that the result includes each format's id, description, and file extension, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the list is static or dynamic, whether it requires prior setup, or any rate-limit considerations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('List the export targets this Railyard build supports') and then specifies the exact output fields. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (id, description, extension) and how the id relates to export_project. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the output format (e.g., JSON array), but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this a minor omission.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description correctly explains what the tool returns, which is the only semantic content needed. Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that by clearly stating the output content.

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 purpose: listing export targets supported by the Railyard build. It specifies the resource (export formats), the action (list), and the key content of the result (id, description, file extension). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling export_project by noting the id is what export_project takes, which helps an agent understand its role in the workflow.

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 when to use this tool: when an agent needs to discover available export formats and their IDs before calling export_project. It doesn't explicitly state 'use this before export_project' or list alternatives, but the mention of 'what export_project takes' provides clear contextual guidance. It could be stronger with an explicit when-to-use statement, but the 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.