Export clauses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the side effect (writing the library to a file) and the return contract (path, format, clause count). It could also mention failure behavior or explicitly state that the source library is not modified, but the core behavioral contract is well covered.

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 action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence gives a compact list of return values. Every sentence earns its place.

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 relatively simple export tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and a clear schema, the description plus schema provides enough context for correct invocation: destination path, required format, overwrite behavior, return values, and scope. It doesn't discuss error cases or the Pro-vs-free behavior beyond what the schema notes, but those are secondary for a straightforward export.

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 per cent, and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics; it only reinforces the overall scope. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter-documentation load.

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 uses a specific verb ('write'), names the resource ('the whole clause library'), and states the output ('one file'), which clearly differentiates it from per-clause operations like clause_get, clause_add, and clause_import. The scope qualifier 'whole' removes ambiguity about partial exports.

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 opens with 'Call this tool to...' and defines the intended use case for exporting the full clause library. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with the many unrelated sibling tools.

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