openmausbot_export_team

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds the requirement of a 'paired-device session token', which is a behavioral precondition not present in the schema or annotations. However, it does not explain what the token is, how to obtain it, or what happens without it. This is a small addition but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and a key requirement. There is zero filler, and it is front-loaded with the verb. It is as concise as possible while conveying the essential 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema that presumably describes the return structure. Annotations cover safety. The main gap is the unclear 'paired-device session token' — it is mentioned but not explained, and it is not a parameter in the schema. This could confuse an agent about how to supply it. For a simple tool, this is a minor but notable omission; a 3 reflects that it is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 100% for the only parameter (format) with its enum and default fully documented. The description does not add any meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states. It mentions 'team data' but not the format choices. Per the rubric, with high coverage, a 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 clearly states the action ('Export team data') and the resource ('team data'), with a specific qualifier ('using a paired-device session token'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list/update by focusing on export, but does not explicitly name alternatives or what makes it different. The annotation title adds a bit more context but the description alone is sufficiently clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus others. It does not mention any alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions for selection. The only hint is the session token requirement, which is not elaborated. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context, which is inadequate for a tool with many siblings.

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