dm_spectrum_export

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the experimental/NOT_TESTED status with synthetic-only coverage, the non-destructive write policy, float64 arithmetic, and the deliberate refusal to assume intensity units. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before calling a file-writing tool.

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 action and output format, then limitations. Dense but every clause adds a constraint or exclusion; slightly long single-block sentences could break more cleanly, but there is little wasted text.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: the produced file format and dtypes, the sidecar metadata output, the write-safety guarantee, and the scope of supported data. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including path, image_id, reduction, energy_axis, spatial_bounds and energy_window_eV. The description reinforces a few semantics (energy window selection, no interpolation/background subtraction, no unit assumption) but mostly repeats schema content, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a new CSV with named columns (energy_eV, intensity as float64) plus a metadata sidecar, derived from dm_spectrum's spatial reduction and energy selection. The 'new file, never overwrite or write back' framing distinguishes it from in-place analysis siblings like dm_spectrum and dm_spectrum_integrate.

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?

Explicitly enumerates when-not conditions: no spectrum-type auto-detection, no background subtraction, no elemental/chemical quantification, rejects 4D diffraction and nm-calibrated energy axes. It references dm_spectrum as the upstream source, though it does not name which sibling to use for the excluded tasks (e.g., quantification), so routing beyond 'don't use this' is incomplete.

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