export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is 'rendered by bpmn-js', which is a behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation; it is consistent. The description doesn't need to repeat safety hints since annotations carry that, and it adds value with the rendering detail.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Export') and resource ('current diagram'), followed by the output formats and rendering detail. There is zero filler or repetition. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 that the output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. The tool has two optional parameters that are fully documented in the schema, and the description covers purpose and output formats. Annotations cover safety. Nothing needed for an agent to call this tool successfully is missing.

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?

The input schema describes both parameters: 'format' with enum values and a default, and 'formatted' with a description. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any extra meaning about parameter syntax, alternatives, or nuances beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the specific verb 'export' and the resource 'current diagram', and specifies the two possible output formats (BPMN XML or svg+xml). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save and save_as, which persist files, while export produces a serialized representation. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context that this tool is for exporting the current diagram in a specific format, which is implicitly distinct from saving or opening. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident given the format and the 'current diagram' scope. A slight gap is the lack of explicit routing to save_as for persistence, but the context is adequate.

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