export_markers_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does well: it discloses the side effect (file write), the return value (absolute path), the output columns, and the surprising activeSequence inclusion. It stops short of stating overwrite behavior or error conditions when no markers match, which are meaningful gaps for a file-writing tool.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core behavior and output format come first, followed by column details, common usage examples, and an important activeSequence caveat. The description is front-loaded and compact without redundancy.

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 description covers the return value, output schema-like column list, parameter semantics via examples, and the activeSequence context, which is particularly helpful because there is no output schema. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could note whether an existing file is overwritten or an error is raised when no markers match.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value beyond the schema: it gives example values for prefix and filename, explains that prefix is a matching filter, and shows how the filename maps to intended use cases. This makes parameter usage more concrete than the schema alone.

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 states a precise action ('Write a CSV'), a specific resource ('every marker matching prefix'), and a target location ('Scout plugin's UXP data folder'). It clearly differentiates itself from export-as-XML tools and from marker inspection tools like list_markers by describing file output with concrete columns.

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 gives concrete usage patterns: quote pulls with prefix='Scout/Quote:' and B-roll cues with prefix='Scout/Broll:', and explains how to use activeSequence to detect mid-session sequence switches. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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