export_interface_isf

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it defaults to a specific file name in the project folder and supports filtering via block_types/instances. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose details like file overwrite behavior or other side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, then covers format, use cases, and parameters. It contains no filler and every clause contributes essential information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 covers the output format, default location, use cases, and filtering options, which is sufficient for an export tool. It lacks an explanation of the export_all_pins parameter, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, the overall guidance is quite complete. A brief note on that parameter would elevate it to a 5.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It explains that block_types/instances limit what is exported, and the default file name implies the role of isf_file. However, it does not explain export_all_pins and gives only partial meaning to the parameters. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Export'), a resource ('Interface Designer settings'), and a target format ('.isf, Python commands that recreate the blocks'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by linking to the complementary import operation (edit_interface op import_isf) and describing the output's use as a readable backup or for copying settings, leaving no ambiguity about what this 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 usage context: 'Useful as a readable backup, for diffs, or to copy settings to another project.' It also mentions the companion import tool, which implies a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives for exporting settings, so it stops short of a full 5.

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