openvsp.batch_export

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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing key side effects: it creates a new export directory on every call, does not run a solver, does not rewrite batch.json, and leaves existing artifacts untouched. This disambiguates the tool's non-destructive but additive behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first defines the output contents, second clarifies side effects, third routes to alternatives. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 one simple parameter, a well-documented input schema, and an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: purpose, side effects, output artifacts, and sibling alternatives. There are no significant gaps.

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%, and the schema already thoroughly documents batch_directory, including that it must be an existing directory at its original absolute location and that a fresh export directory is added there. The description adds output filenames and manifest contents, but no additional parameter-level meaning beyond 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 names a specific action ('Export a saved batch manifest snapshot'), the exact resource (batch directory), and the output files (results.csv and results.json). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools batch_status and read_results by naming what those tools do instead.

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 explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: batch_status for a paginated progress summary and read_results for one operation manifest. This tells the agent when this export tool is and is not the right choice.

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