arf_export_differential

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

Far exceeds the annotations (which only say idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only): it explains what apply_curation removes (wrong-marked spots treated as unidentified), that meta rows declare '# curation = ...', the exact success payload fields {state, wrong_excluded, suspect, orphaned} plus assigned/redundant_excluded, and that unreadable flag lines cause an error rather than silent loss. This is rich, specific behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads purpose and prerequisites well, but the curation paragraph is dense and trails into payload-field enumeration that could be tightened. Most sentences earn their place, though the structure is not maximally lean.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the return payload and warning behavior. Combined with prerequisite and join semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does this thoroughly for apply_curation (default true, exclusion behavior, no-op when no flags, assign/redundant handling). output_path is left uncharacterized (overwrite behavior, directory creation) but is self-evident from its name and required status.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: writes differential results into a single file with InChIKey (spec §6.1), and clarifies it emits all rows with InChIKey, not only significant ones. It does not name distinguishing alternatives such as arf_export_evidence_bundle or dataset_export_differential, so an agent must infer the choice.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite ordering: run arf_preprocess → arf_differential first, and that identification data is joined from the sibling .arf2 via MasterAlignmentID. No exclusions or comparison against sibling export tools are given, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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