pm_export_users_joined

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the output format (plain text) and behavior (export with filters), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or safe. For a data export, this is acceptable but could be improved.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint, then lists format, fields, separators, and filter equivalence. Every word contributes directly to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has an output schema (so return values need not be detailed), the description covers the key aspects: output type, field options, separator options, and filter equivalence. It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool, though cross-referencing pm_list_users adds a small dependency.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for two key parameters (field and separator) with allowed values. The remaining six parameters are only referenced via 'same filters as pm_list_users,' which relies on agent knowledge of that tool. This partially compensates for low coverage but does not fully explain all parameters.

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 exports users in plain text, specifying available fields and separators. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pm_export_users_csv (likely CSV format) and pm_list_users (JSON list) by highlighting the plain text output and filter equivalence.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'same filters as pm_list_users,' suggesting when to use this tool for filtered plain-text exports. However, it does not explicitly contrast with pm_export_users_csv or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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