research_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a non-destructive export operation generating a markdown memo, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or whether the project must be in a certain state.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple tool with no output schema and few parameters, the description covers output content and use cases. It could be more complete by detailing the exact markdown structure or format constraints, but overall it is adequate.

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 50% (format has a description). The description adds no further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides; 'projectId' remains undefined and format is already explained.

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 explicitly states 'Export the project as a markdown memo' with specific content (question, findings, sources, confidence, gaps), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that add or manage individual research components.

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 concrete use cases: sending a brief to a teammate, pasting into Notion, or feeding into an LLM. It implies a summary export role but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives like using research_finding_add for detailed data.

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