export_git_projection

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Export' implies writing artifacts to an external directory, and 'Git-compatible' hints at the output format — both useful. But it does not disclose whether the output directory is overwritten, whether it must pre-exist or is created, what a 'projection' contains, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 seven-word sentence with the 'Integrator-only' constraint front-loaded ahead of the action. No wasted words, and the structure is efficient. Slightly under-specified given the 0% schema coverage, but as a concise statement it earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description omits critical behavioral context: what exactly gets exported, how the output directory is treated (create vs. overwrite vs. require-existing), and how actor_role is validated against the 'Integrator-only' constraint. For a tool that writes to an external filesystem location, this is a significant gap.

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. It does so indirectly: 'Git-compatible projection directory' implies the meaning of output_dir and 'Integrator-only' implies the value/meaning of actor_role. But neither mapping is explicit, and the agent must infer these connections rather than being told.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'export to a Git-compatible projection directory,' which is clear and distinct among the sibling tools (no other export tool exists). The 'Integrator-only' qualifier adds scope. However, it never specifies what data is being exported (the 'projection' of what?), leaving some ambiguity about the exported content.

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 only usage guidance is 'Integrator-only,' which is a role restriction rather than when-to-use context. It names no alternative tools, no conditions that trigger export, no exclusions, and no prerequisite steps. An agent gets no help deciding between this and the many sibling tools beyond the export verb itself.

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