label_export

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output format, internal implementation (pure Python formatting of label_get_all data), and overwrite semantics. It stops short of describing failure behavior when overwrite is false or the return value, but the key side effects are visible.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the args block is clean and readable. The implementation-background sentence adds transparency but is non-essential, preventing a perfect score for economy.

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 two-parameter file-export tool with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: destination path semantics, overwrite behavior, and file format. The relation to label_import completes the mental model, so no critical context is missing.

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%, yet the description documents both parameters: path as an absolute output path, and overwrite with its replace behavior and default. This fully compensates for the schema's bare string and boolean 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?

Description opens with 'Export all labels to a standard Audacity label text file' — a precise verb, resource, and output format. It further specifies tab-separated start/end/text lines and references label_import, making the tool's scope distinct from siblings like label_export_chapters.

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 explicitly frames the output as the same format label_import reads back, signaling interoperability and a round-trip use case. It does not, however, name sibling alternatives like label_export_chapters or label_export_audio_segments, nor state when not to use them, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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