export_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it declares the operation as read-only, states the output format (structured JSON), and lists the included entities. It does not disclose limitations like pagination or permissions, but for a single export operation, this is sufficient.

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 sentences that front-load the core purpose and use cases. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

While the description covers the tool's purpose and use cases, it lacks explanation of the parameters (especially the required IDs) and does not describe the output JSON structure. With low schema coverage and no output schema, the description could be more complete by elaborating on these aspects.

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 only 25% (only the 'format' parameter has a description). The main description does not explain the required parameters (accountId, containerId, workspaceId) or their purpose. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, which is particularly problematic given low coverage.

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 verb 'Export', the resource 'full GTM workspace summary', and the output format 'structured JSON'. It explicitly lists what is returned (tags, triggers, variables, folders, built-in variables), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual entities or different operations.

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 explicit use cases: 'documentation, auditing, or feeding container data to other tools.' It also notes the operation is read-only. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, the use cases are clear and appropriate for this tool.

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