fm_export_database_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates important limitations: the export is not a true DDR, and specific elements like relationship definitions, calculation formulas, and script contents cannot be retrieved. This provides crucial context about what the tool can and cannot do beyond basic functionality.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides crucial limitations. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information. The warning about API constraints is appropriately placed and necessary for proper tool understanding.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well in covering the essential behavioral context (limitations, scope). It explains what the tool does and what it cannot do. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the export output looks like, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema. While it mentions the types of information being exported (layouts, fields, scripts, value lists), this doesn't provide additional guidance about parameter usage beyond the schema's descriptions of includeLayouts, includeScripts, etc.

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 specific action ('export'), resource ('database structural information'), and scope ('layouts, fields, scripts, value lists'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like fm_get_layout_metadata, fm_get_scripts, and fm_list_value_lists by emphasizing aggregation and export functionality rather than individual retrieval.

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 clear context about when to use this tool by stating it aggregates multiple structural elements into a single export, which implies it's for comprehensive metadata extraction rather than piecemeal retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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