export_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states writing to a file if path is provided but omits behavior without path (e.g., returning data). It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., no modification) or failure modes.

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 concise at two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor improvement possible by merging path explanation into the first sentence.

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 and one optional param, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value when path is omitted, nor does it list supported formats beyond examples. An agent may miss critical usage details.

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 description adds meaning to the 'path' parameter by explaining it writes a file directly, which the schema does not. However, it does not clarify what happens when omitted, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description provides only marginal extra value.

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 identifies the action (export) and resource (project), with examples of output formats. It distinguishes from sibling tools like save_project by specifying 'through its format's codec'. However, it lacks precision on what happens when 'path' is omitted.

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 provides examples of formats but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., save_project for native format). It does not mention prerequisites or context like needing an open project.

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