Export Nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses what is written (one row per node with named columns), what is returned (only path and statistics), the JSON:API encoding guarantee for accents/newlines, write-path restrictions (Drupal root, temp dir, or home dir only), the default output location and timestamped filename, and the 5000-character cap on field values.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the rationale, then flows into parameter detail; nearly every sentence earns its place. The parameter block is dense and run-on, which slightly reduces scannability, but there is little genuine waste.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully summarizes the return (path plus statistics) rather than repeating field-level detail. Combined with full parameter coverage, safety/path constraints, and default-location behavior, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 and it does for all six parameters: limit (0 = no cap, 100000 max), format (csv vs xlsx, UTF-8 BOM nuance), output_path (allowed directories plus defaults), content_type (restricts to one bundle, with an 'article' example), include_fields (adds a JSON fields column, 5000-char string cap), and include_unpublished (default exclusion).

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (Export) plus resource (node inventory) and the output medium (CSV or Excel file on disk). It is clearly separable from siblings like query_nodes (in-conversation reads), export_users, export_media, and export_taxonomy, which target different resources.

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?

It gives clear context for when this is the right call — large audits that 'never have to travel through the conversation' — implying query_nodes-style output is the wrong choice for bulk data. It does not, however, name an alternative tool explicitly or state a when-not condition, so it stops short of the top score.

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