label_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. It does not specify the file format (e.g., Audacity label format), whether existing files are overwritten, if parent directories must exist, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The 'Args:' section efficiently documents the single parameter. However, the docstring format is slightly technical rather than conversational, and extreme brevity leaves functional gaps.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter structure, the description covers the basics but remains incomplete. It lacks essential context about the output file format (crucial for a text export tool) and does not clarify the scope of 'all labels' (project-wide vs. selected track) despite the availability of track-specific label tools in siblings.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (only title 'Path'). The description compensates by specifying the path must be 'Absolute' and for 'output', adding critical semantics missing from the schema. However, it omits file extension expectations or path validation rules.

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 tool exports labels to a text file, specifying the action and output format. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like `label_get_all` (which returns labels to the agent) or `project_export_labels`, leaving ambiguity about which export method to choose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this file-export approach versus retrieving labels directly via `label_get_all`, or how it compares to `project_export_labels`. No prerequisites (like directory existence) or exclusions are mentioned.

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