Export a handwriting session as Markdown, JSONL, JSON, or Excalidraw for sharing, review, or stroke replay. Leave session ID blank to export the current session.
【递纸】导出一个手写会话为可移植格式：md（人类可读+识别文本）、jsonl（原始日志）、json（笔画重放）、excalidraw（可在 Excalidraw 打开）。session_id 留空则用当前会话。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | 导出格式，默认 md | |
| session_id | No | 会话 ID，来自 list_sessions；留空=当前会话 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what each format represents (human-readable text, raw logs, stroke replay, Excalidraw compatibility) and the blank-session default. It could mention side effects or the return envelope, but the core behavior is well 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?
The description is a single dense sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, then packs the format options and default behavior into a compact, easily scannable structure.
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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core decisions: which format to choose and which session to export. It does not describe the exact return shape, but that is not required to invoke the tool correctly, and the format semantics provide sufficient operational context.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of each format enum value and confirming the session_id default behavior, which goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('导出') with a clear resource ('手写会话') and enumerates the exact output formats and their purposes. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_handwriting or save_snapshot.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: exporting a handwriting session into one of four formats, with explicit behavior for blank session_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.