export_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: items are capped per board for the model's sake while the underlying REST endpoint returns everything. This discloses a meaningful limitation and an important distinction from the direct API, which is valuable for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core purpose, then add use cases and a key limitation. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's scope immediately legible without redundantly restating the schema or annotations.

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's moderate complexity, no output schema, and read-only annotation already covering safety, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned, why to use it, and the item cap behavior. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool without missing essential context.

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 coverage is 67% with projectId undocumented, but the description adds practical meaning by explaining the per-board cap and that the REST endpoint returns everything. This directly informs how an agent should interpret maxItemsPerBoard and the tool's output richness, going beyond the schema's default/maximum metadata.

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 states a specific verb and resource: exports the whole project as JSON, enumerating boards, columns, and items with cells keyed by column id. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/query tools by emphasizing full-project export. The use cases for migrations, backups, and system reconstruction reinforce the intended scope.

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 explicitly names when to use it: migrations, backups, and reading a system back. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, but the 'whole project' framing plus the REST endpoint hint give clear context that narrower tools like list_boards or query_items are for partial reads.

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