export_with_options

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it fails to do so. There is no mention of side effects, overwrite behavior, permissions, or limitations. The tool mutates files, yet no behavioral details are described.

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 extremely short (5 words), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information about parameters and usage, failing to earn its place as a helpful description.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, nested options object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, parameter details, or usage context, leaving the agent without adequate information.

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 only 33% (only outputPath has a description). The description does not compensate by explaining parameters like format enum values or the options object structure. Without additional details, the agent lacks semantic understanding for correct invocation.

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 'Export with specific format options' identifies the verb (export) and resource (file with format options), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like export_file, lacking differentiation context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_file or other export-related tools. The description implies general export usage but offers no exclusions or context for selection.

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