history_export

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — the return format is a JSON array — which is valuable since no output schema exists. However, it says nothing about whether exporting is non-destructive, whether it clears or preserves history (a live question given the history_clear sibling), or how large an export can get.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the tool has siblings that return overlapping data.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool this covers the essentials: what it does and what it returns. It is still thin on default scope (all projects when projectId is omitted) and on the read-vs-destructive question, which matters because history_clear sits right beside it.

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% and the single parameter (projectId, optional, scopes the export to one project) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Export') plus the resource ('request history') and the output shape ('JSON array'). It implicitly separates itself from history_list/history_get by framing this as an export rather than a query/list, but never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to reach for this versus history_list or history_get, which return the same underlying data in a different form. The only usage hint is the optional project-scoping parameter inherited from the schema, not from the prose.

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