Export Users

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the file-write side effect, the default output directories and the path confinement rule, that blocked accounts are force-included, and that the uid-0 anonymous pseudo-account is silently skipped and reported via skipped_without_id. It still omits required permissions/auth level and whether an existing file is overwritten.

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 core purpose, then layered with details that each carry information (columns, blocked-account policy, path defaults, anonymous skip). Four sentences is slightly long for the payload, but nothing reads as filler.

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 file-writing export with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description supplies the material an agent needs: what is written, where, under what path restrictions, and how edge-case users are handled. An output schema exists, so return values correctly need no explanation here.

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 two of three parameters - 'format' (CSV or Excel) and 'output_path' (default locations plus the confinement constraint). The 'limit' parameter is never mentioned, leaving its default-0 semantics (presumably unlimited) unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource - 'Export the site's user accounts to a CSV or Excel file on disk' - which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling exports (export_nodes, export_media, export_taxonomy, export_config). The scope is further pinned down by enumerating the row columns.

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?

Gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate ('an audit needs them', with blocked accounts always included), which tells the agent this is a full-fidelity bulk export. However it names no exclusion conditions and does not route the agent away from alternatives such as list_users or export_taxonomy when those would be a better fit.

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