Export

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

Annotations declare a non-destructive write with no open-world access; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — where files land on disk, that assets are bundled with the project JSON, and that the return payload is shaped by the verbose flag. Missing only permission or overwrite behavior for a pre-existing export directory.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then the return contract. The 'verify a build by grepping those HTML files' clause is a little colloquial but still earns its place as a next-step hint. No filler.

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?

With five optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names outDir, page paths and per-kind counts, and explains the verbose variant. What it does not cover is overwrite/idempotency behavior when an export already exists, which matters for a filesystem-writing tool.

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 schema already explains minify, baseUrl, verbose, includeStatic and includeProjectJson. The description only corroborates the static/JSON split and the verbose output shape, without adding syntax or interaction details beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Export the site') plus the exact destination path (.swebsy-agent/exports/) and the two export modes. No sibling competes for this action, and an agent can tell it apart from read-only inspection tools like swebsy_status or swebsy_list_assets immediately.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention that you can 'verify a build by grepping those HTML files' hints at the post-export workflow, and the parameter defaults (includeStatic true, includeProjectJson false) implicitly say which mode is standard. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer static vs. project JSON or when not to export at all.

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