export_container

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and explicitly states 'This is a read-only operation', which is a key behavioral disclosure. It also describes what is returned, but does not mention pagination or potential truncation, though the schema's maxPages description covers some of that.

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 concise sentences: purpose, return contents, and use cases. No fluff, every sentence adds value, and key info is front-loaded.

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 gives a solid overview of purpose, output, and read-only nature, but lacks details about the JSON structure, truncation semantics, or pagination behavior. The schema partially covers maxPages, but without an output schema or annotations, the description could provide more complete guidance.

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 40%, and the description adds no parameter context. The required IDs (accountId, containerId, workspaceId) have no documentation in either schema or description. The format and maxPages parameters are explained in the schema, but the description doesn't compensate for the 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 a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('full GTM workspace summary'), and output ('structured JSON'), listing all included components (tags, triggers, variables, folders, built-in variables). This distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools that target individual entities.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('documentation, auditing, or feeding container data to other tools') that imply when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like containers_get or audit_container, nor state when not to use it.

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