export_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the tool 'reads the local SQLite database and returns it inline — nothing is uploaded,' covering both data source and privacy implications. It also discloses the licensing limitation, though it doesn't specify the return structure or potential side effects beyond 'reads'.

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 concise and front-loaded, with purpose, restriction, args, and behavioral note in four lines. The metaphorical 'Your data is yours; this is the door out' adds emphasis but little factual information, keeping it from being maximally efficient.

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 one-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers what, who, and how: full dataset, licensing, reads local SQLite, returns inline, and nothing is uploaded. It doesn't specify the exact return format beyond 'inline' or address potential size limits or errors, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema's sole parameter `fmt` only defines a type and default, but the description fully explains the valid values: 'json' for raw records and 'csv' for one CSV block per table. This completely compensates for the empty schema description.

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 opens with 'Export the full local Tempo dataset,' providing a specific verb and resource. It also notes the licensing restriction ('Pro and Team Solo only') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools which handle scoring, check-ins, ingestion, and recommendations.

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 frames this as the tool for retrieving one's own data ('this is the door out') and notes it is limited to Pro and Team Solo. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool shares the export function, so the context is sufficiently clear.

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