akb_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It specifies that documents export 1:1, tables/files become OKF concept documents with resource pointers, reader role is required, and the return format is a {path: content} map. This is detailed and goes well beyond a simple 'export' statement.

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 yet information-dense, covering purpose, return format, parameter semantics, conversion behavior, role requirements, and an alternative in four sentences. Every sentence contributes meaningful detail without redundancy.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description thoroughly covers the return value structure, transformation logic, format options, permission requirements, and a fallback path. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect and when to reject use.

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 100% so both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the 'format' parameter's current value ('okf') and its implications (markdown + YAML frontmatter, only required field 'type'). This adds value beyond the schema's brief notes.

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 exports an entire vault as a portable knowledge bundle, using a specific verb (Export) and resource (vault). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing the inline return format and mentioning an alternative REST endpoint for zip downloads.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for inline bundle export) and explicitly points to the REST endpoint for a downloadable zip alternative. However, it doesn't enumerate comparisons with all sibling tools, though the alternative is sufficient for key use cases.

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