export_translations

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

The description lacks information about behavioral traits such as whether the export is read-only (non-destructive), any required permissions, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description should disclose these traits, but it only describes parameters. The export is likely safe, but this is not stated.

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 concise, using a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

The description covers all parameters thoroughly, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, it lacks context like error handling or prerequisites (e.g., project existence). Overall, it is largely complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: project_id (numeric ID), format (supported formats listed), languages (optional list of language tags), and filter_namespace (optional namespace filter). It also mentions defaults, adding significant value beyond the 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 'Export translations from a Tolgee project.' This provides a specific verb (export) and resource (translations), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinct from sibling tools like create_key or import_translations.

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 implies the tool is for exporting translations but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, such as when a different export format is needed or when to use import tools instead. No exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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