export_project

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the item cap per board and the fact that the REST endpoint returns the complete export. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and front-loads the key output shape and use cases. The phrase 'reading a system back' is slightly awkward and the full endpoint path adds minor noise, but overall it is compact and scannable.

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 read-only export tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers output composition, intended use cases, the item cap, and the complete-data alternative. An agent has enough context to select and call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents projectId, organizationId, and maxItemsPerBoard. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the general cap behavior, so the baseline of 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 names a specific action (export), a resource (the whole project), and the exact content of the JSON: boards, columns with settings, items with cells keyed by column id. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_* and get_board_schema 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: for migrations, backups, and reading a system back. It also tells the agent that items are capped per board and that the REST endpoint returns everything, effectively providing an alternative when the full dataset is needed.

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