yaaif_platform_export

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey the output form (shell environment values) and 'export' conventionally implies a non-mutating read, giving some safety signal, but it omits output destination (stdout vs. returned string), auth requirements, and explicit confirmation of no side effects.

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?

A single 13-word sentence that front-loads the verb and packs scope, output format, and target client into one clause. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential invocation facts: what is exported, in what format, and for which client. It falls short of 5 only in not detailing the exact output syntax (e.g., KEY=VALUE vs. export KEY=VALUE lines) or how results are delivered.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to add; nothing about the argument surface is left unexplained.

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 verb (export), a resource (active profile), and an output form (shell environment values), making the operation clear at a glance and distinguishable from siblings like platform_list and platform_save. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings and the 'active YAA\F client' phrasing is slightly cryptic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yaaif_platform_list or yaaif_platform_save, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., needing an active profile or authenticated session). The agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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