swebsy_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes files to a directory and returns outDir, page paths, and file counts, plus a verification method (grepping HTML files). It does not mention side effects like overwriting or permissions, but the core behavioral traits are covered adequately for a non-destructive export action.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action and destination are front-loaded, followed by return value and verification guidance. Every sentence adds value and the structure is optimal.

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 action, destination, return value (outDir, paths, counts), and a verification method. With no output schema and 5 optional parameters, this is reasonably complete. It lacks explicit error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., site must exist), but given the sibling context, that is not a critical omission.

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 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (minify, baseUrl, verbose, includeStatic, includeProjectJson). The description adds a small link between the static/JSON modes and the corresponding boolean parameters but does not enrich the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'Export' and the resource 'the site' to a specific destination (.swebsy-agent/exports/). It also distinguishes two output modes (static files and project JSON) and lists the return values, making it unmistakably different from the sibling editing tools.

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 tool is the only export operation among siblings, so its use case is implicitly clear. It mentions two export modes (static and JSON) but does not explicitly state when to choose one over the other; however, the parameter descriptions cover that choice. No alternative export tool exists, so exclusions are unnecessary.

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