export_notes

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only 'active' notes are exported (useful scope info) and the default formats/directory, but says nothing about whether existing files are overwritten, file naming, permissions, or error behavior for a tool that writes to disk.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and each param line adds concrete information. The 'Args:' block is slightly boilerplate but contains no 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 simple two-optional-parameter export tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and their defaults. The only gap is file-write side-effect behavior, which is minor at this complexity.

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: it names the allowed export_format values ('markdown' or 'json') plus the default, and explains output_dir as the target path defaulting to the user's Documents folder. That adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 (Export) and resource (all active Sticky Notes) plus the output forms (Markdown file or JSON dump), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_notes or get_note, but the intent is clear enough to select it over them.

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 says what is exported but never states when to choose export_notes over list_notes/get_note, or any prerequisites. 'All active' implies a scope filter but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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