instinct

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the confidence threshold (>=10), describes the return format ('raw records without any formatting'), and explains what happens when no data exists ('Empty list if no patterns have reached rule level yet'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers the core operational behavior adequately.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, usage context, alternatives guidance, and return format explanation in 4 focused sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (export operation with filtering), no annotations, and an output schema that exists, the description provides complete context: it explains the purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral constraints (confidence threshold), return format, and edge cases. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description adds value by explaining the implicit filtering behavior ('confidence >= 10') and clarifying that no parameters are needed for this export operation, which is helpful context beyond the empty schema.

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's purpose with specific verb ('export') and resource ('rule-level patterns'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools (export_claude_md, export_platform, export_skill) by specifying it exports 'structured JSON' for system-to-system handoff rather than human-readable formats.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to hand off validated instincts to another system') and when to use alternatives instead ('For human-readable or platform-specific output... use export_claude_md(), export_platform(), or export_skill() instead'). It clearly defines the tool's specific use case versus sibling alternatives.

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