Project Export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the call is read-only or triggers expensive rendering, what happens if the project is unbuilt, whether it errors or blocks, or whether the bundle is streamed or written to disk — all critical for a tool whose output is a multi-artifact bundle.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the enumeration of bundle contents is the most useful part and comes immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though the fragment style leaves the action slightly terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly needed (the description's enumeration is a bonus). However, for a tool that appears to sit at the end of a pipeline, the missing prerequisite state and error behavior leave a meaningful gap.

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?

There is one parameter (project_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its expected format. With no parameter documentation anywhere, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Return') and resource ('the finished bundle') and enumerates its four artifacts (video, code.py, storyboard, report), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish this from siblings like project_build, project_stitch, or project_render_final, leaving ambiguity about whether export produces the bundle or merely retrieves an already-built one.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether project_build/project_stitch must run first), and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The word 'finished' hints that a prior build is required, but the agent must infer this.

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