Export metrics / work log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' while adding detailed behavioral context: the flat-file nature, supported formats, and specific data contents for each 'what' option (e.g., 'date, ticket, model, tokens, additions/deletions'). No contradictions.

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 with three clauses in two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and efficiently covers variants, formats, and safety. The 'mirroring export_tasks' phrase adds slight ambiguity but doesn't waste space.

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 simple flat-file export tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: purpose, what data is returned for each 'what' value, supported formats, and read-only nature. It doesn't fully specify output structure (e.g., field order in CSV), but given the context, it's sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears full burden. It explains the 'what' parameter's two enum values in detail (including output fields) and mentions 'formats: json or csv'. The 'project' parameter is not elaborated, but its purpose is obvious. Overall, it adds significant value beyond raw schema.

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 'Flat-file export of analytics for external BI/spreadsheet use' and specifies two variants (worklog and completions) with concrete output fields. It also mentions mirroring export_tasks, but the distinction is implied rather than explicit, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides context by naming export_tasks as a sibling, suggesting it's an alternative for analytics data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others or provide exclusions. The two 'what' options offer some guidance, but no clear 'when-not-to-use'.

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