export_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (recall of recorded patch rationale), that it is read-only on the log, and that nothing is auto-generated, but it does not state whether anything is mutated, what gets written when output_path is supplied, or whether output is truncated for large logs.

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, front-loaded with the core action and output types. Slightly padded by the "at no cost to your context" value pitch, but the invocation constraint is well placed and nothing is buried.

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 5-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the two output modes (returned markdown vs. written to output_path) and the scoping constraint that it never fires automatically. It stops short of describing the markdown's structure, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.

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 80%, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning (including the file/session enum semantics and the output_path fallback). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that baseline, which is adequate but not additive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: turn the patch log into readable documentation, with concrete exemplars (changelog, release notes, batch summary). It is clearly distinct from sibling mutations like revert_patch or insert_symbol, though it never names a sibling or contrasts with publish_session, which is the nearest-looking alternative.

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?

"Runs ONLY when asked: nothing generates it automatically" clarifies that this is a user-triggered read, which is useful context. However, it never says when to pick export_docs over publish_session or patch_group, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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