export_opml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'safe to call repeatedly; no side effects' and describes the return format. It does not cover potential errors or permissions, but for a read-only export, this is good.

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 five sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information without repetition or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. It lacks details on error cases or what happens with invalid inputs, but overall is sufficient for a simple export tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing examples (e.g., export_opml({ scope: 'project', id: 'abc123' })) and clarifying that 'id' is required for specific scopes. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 the tool exports OmniFocus data as OPML XML, a structured outline format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like export_taskpaper (different format) and import_opml (import vs export) by clearly defining its output format and scope levels.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Do NOT use to export a single task; OPML scope is project-level or broader.' It also explains three scopes with examples. Missing explicit mention of alternative tools for single-task exports, but the warning is strong enough to guide proper usage.

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