export_onboarding

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

The description discloses that it writes files and returns paths, which is a side effect. However, it does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, requires prior analysis, or any potential destructive actions. Given no annotations, this is partial transparency but not comprehensive.

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, consisting of two sentences that directly state the action and the return value. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no redundant or ambiguous phrasing.

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 provides sufficient detail about the output (file types, location, contents) and return value, making it usable without additional context. It lacks any mention of dependencies on other tools (e.g., analyze_repository) or environmental prerequisites, but for a tool with no inputs, it is reasonably 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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so there is nothing to explain. The description does not introduce any parameter-like concepts, and the absence of parameters means no additional semantic information is needed.

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 tool writes an onboarding package with specific contents (markdown files per workflow and a README.md index) and its location. It uses a specific verb 'writes' and describes the output structure, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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