results_export_data

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

The description indicates it exports data and returns a confirmation with file path, but it lacks details on side effects such as file overwriting or required permissions. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but is minimal.

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, uses a clear Args/Returns structure, and each sentence adds value. However, the Returns section is somewhat redundant given the simple output, but it is acceptable.

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 covers the core functionality and parameters, but it lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., an existing export node), potential errors, or the format of the confirmation. Given the moderate complexity and no output schema, it could be more 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning to all three parameters by explaining defaults (e.g., node_name defaults to 'run all exports', file_path overrides node setting). This significantly aids parameter understanding.

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 action 'Export data from an export node', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like results_export_image and results_evaluate by focusing on export nodes.

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 implies usage for exporting data from export nodes and mentions parameter defaults, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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