export_glossary

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement about exporting aligns with read-only behavior. However, beyond confirming the export action, it adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded: 'Exports a glossary as CSV'. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's action.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core action and format options. It omits prerequisites like needing a valid glossary ID, but the schema's required fields imply this. Overall adequate for the context.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description mentions 'unidirectional and multidirectional formats', which maps to content_type enum, but adds little beyond schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the bulk of parameter meaning.

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 it exports a glossary as CSV, with specific verb 'exports' and resource 'glossary as CSV'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like import_glossary_csv by focusing on export, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., import, create, delete). Usage is implied by the name and description, but no when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons are given.

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