export_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the output is self-contained, read-only, offline, requires no server, and returns file path and size. It flags that scripts are embedded by default and that the user must be warned before sharing – a genuine safety trait. It omits what happens to an existing file at `path` (overwrite/failure), which keeps it from a 5.

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 core action and the contents list are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the sharing caveat is separated so it reads as a distinct instruction. The parenthetical content list and the stray line breaks add slight clutter but no wasted sentences.

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 need not be spelled out, yet the description still notes path and size. All parameters are documented, the behavioral scope is covered, and the share-safety caveat is included – nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains the consequence of `include_scripts=false` (scripts omitted, and the sharing warning no longer applies). It does not add anything about `path` semantics, which the schema already covers with its default.

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 and artifact: 'Write a single self-contained HTML file of the map', and enumerates its contents (steps, code, runs, experiment tree, compare). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling open_map, which an agent could easily confuse it with, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear situational context: the file opens offline with no server so the user can email it, post it in Slack, or host it on GitHub Pages/gist. This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit exclusion or pointer to open_map as the interactive alternative.

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