Export Workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the exact output format identifier, the completeness of the export, and what data is included. It does not cover error behavior or size limits, but for a read-only export tool that is a minor gap.

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 two tight sentences with zero wasted words. The core action and format are front-loaded, and the trailing 'Read-only' is a compact safety confirmation.

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 no output schema exists, the description appropriately explains the return format and what the JSON contains. Combined with the fully described input schema, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. The only missing element is explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling workflow tools.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all three parameters, including the enum for version and the aliases/pattern for workflow. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is this high.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('legacy workflow version'), and adds the output format ('one complete JSON document (now-sdk-ext/legacy-workflow@1)') and included content. It distinguishes this from creation/conversion siblings, but does not explicitly contrast with get_workflow or outline_workflow.

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 stating it exports a complete JSON document for legacy workflows, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name any sibling tool as an alternative. An agent must infer that this is the right tool for full JSON export versus get_workflow or outline_workflow.

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