yaaif_agent_spec_release_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only adds 'signed-by-hash' and an intended use case. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the returned manifest contains, how it is delivered, or what failures can occur.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Export') and includes the most important qualifier ('signed-by-hash'). There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits output format, side effects, prerequisites, and relationships to nearby release-management tools, leaving several important operational details unspecified.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not mention spec_id or revision at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. The schema only provides types, not semantic guidance.

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 names a specific operation ('Export') and a specific resource ('signed-by-hash Scenario release manifest'), so an agent understands the basic action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling release tools like yaaif_agent_spec_release_provenance_record or yaaif_agent_spec_release_import, but the export/import contrast is reasonably inferable.

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 phrase 'suitable for committing to Git, review, and disaster recovery' gives a clear use context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over related release tools, nor does it mention prerequisites such as a published/released spec or when not to use it.

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