technocore_export_room

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the destination cannot be chosen, that the default writes to the server's own export directory, and that inline output is labelled untrusted. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The default behavior is front-loaded, the constraint is stated, and the alternative is explained. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision (file vs inline), the constraint (destination cannot be chosen), and the trust label. It doesn't describe the exact shape of the returned path or bytes, but that is likely acceptable given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the behavioral meaning of 'inline' (receive bytes instead of a file) and the 'untrusted' label, which is useful, but it doesn't add much beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('a room's retained ring'), and the output format ('raw JSONL'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on export, which none of the sibling names suggest.

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 clearly explains the default behavior (write to server export directory) and the alternative (inline bytes), which is the key decision an agent must make. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the export operation is distinct enough among the siblings that the usage context is clear.

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