Export tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Read-only' and explaining the round-trip relationship with 'import_tasks', which goes beyond the annotation's binary flag.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. The most critical details (purpose, formats, round-trip, read-only) are front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, formats, read-only nature, and relationship to import_tasks. It could mention how the exported data is delivered (e.g., download), but that is often implicit for export tools.

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 must compensate. It clarifies the 'format' parameter by listing its enum values (json, csv, markdown). However, it does not add meaning for the 'project' parameter beyond the inferred board identifier, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the verb 'Export', the resource 'a board's tasks', and the output formats 'json, csv, or markdown'. It also mentions the use case 'for use outside FeatureBoard (e.g. sharing with a PM tool)' and distinguishes from the sibling 'import_tasks' via the round-trip note.

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 a clear use context (exporting for external use) and implicitly indicates 'import_tasks' as the reverse operation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for similar tasks.

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