export_dcs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it states that the operation is read-only and defines the two output modes: writing to output_path or returning XML in the xml field. It does not cover error behavior or permission requirements, but the main side-effect profile is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences: the first establishes the primary action and format, the second covers the conditional output behavior. There is no filler or 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?

Despite clear purpose and a useful output-mode note, the description is incomplete for a four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions. The required dir_path parameter and the object_path/template_name parameters remain undefined, so the agent lacks enough information to call the tool reliably.

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 text must explain the parameters. It only clarifies output_path; the required dir_path and the optional object_path and template_name are left with only their generic titles. An agent cannot confidently construct a valid invocation without extra context.

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 names a specific verb and resource: export the entire SCD layout to XML in the standard platform format. The word 'целиком' and the explicit format make the tool's scope clear and help distinguish it from related read/import siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as read_dcs, import_dcs, or read_template, and no exclusions or alternative conditions. The only secondary sentence explains output_path behavior, which is parameter semantics rather than use-case guidance.

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