Export Spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by naming the supported formats and the project-context requirement, but it does not clarify how the exported content is returned (e.g., inline text, file artifact, download URL). With no output schema, a bit more behavioral detail would have been helpful.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and the key requirement without filler. Every phrase 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?

For a two-parameter, read-only export tool, the description covers the operation, supported formats, and a necessary precondition. It does not describe the return payload, which would have been useful given there is no output schema, but the definition is still adequate for a simple tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the format enum/default. The description reinforces the mapping between formats and the format parameter but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Export'), identifies the resource ('API specification'), and specifies the exact output formats (OpenAPI YAML, JSON, Postman Collection). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_variables and export_findings_sarif.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Requires project context.' This tells an agent the tool cannot be used without an active project context. It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but for a simple export operation the context requirement is valuable and clear.

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