export_system

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description is consistent. It adds context about unsupported elements (faucets, heaters) and notes that the export approximates, which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the limitation notes are placed efficiently. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and key limitations, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks guidance on when to use the tool versus siblings and does not mention error handling or return format details. Given its simplicity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 50%: the target parameter has a description, but system_id has none. The tool description does not elaborate on parameters—it doesn't explain system_id format or provide usage details. Since coverage is below 50%, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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: 'Export a system as EPANET .inp text' with specific units and method (CMH, Darcy-Weisbach). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system or list_components. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides some context (mentions unsupported faucets and heaters) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools or give conditions for selection. The 'notes' hint about approximation is useful but not a full usage guideline.

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