export_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'for LLM consumption' and says nothing about the board-wide default scope, the exact-match refusal/skip behavior, or output differences between formats — context that would be genuinely additive here.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. But the brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a tool with this many behavioral nuances.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and a scope that can silently expand to the whole board when ids are omitted, the description omits information an agent needs to call this safely and predictably. The schema carries most of the load, but the description does not close the remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 67%, with the `id` and `ids` parameters already documenting exact-match semantics and the whole-board default. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, and `format` has no description in either place, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb (export) and resource (task(s)) plus the output artifact (a formatted prompt for LLM consumption), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from list_tasks/get_task. However, it never contrasts itself against those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer export_prompt over get_task or list_tasks, or that omitting ids exports the entire board.

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