export_logbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and only says the export is complete and auditor-readable. It omits whether the operation is read-only, whether exports are size-limited or paginated, and whether sensitive data is included, leaving key behavioral traits unstated.

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; the verb, resource, formats, and consumer are all stated immediately.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is simple. However, for an export tool with no annotations, the description should say more about scope and operational limits to be complete.

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?

The single format parameter has an enum of json/csv and a default, so the schema is largely self-explanatory despite 0% description coverage. The description confirms both formats exist but adds no detail on format-specific differences or defaults beyond what the schema shows.

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 ("Export the full logbook") plus the supported output formats, which distinguishes it from siblings like log_event and verify_logbook. It doesn't explicitly name what it is not, but the action is unambiguous.

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 auditor-facing framing implies when to use it (producing a human-readable record), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to verify_logbook or recent_events. The agent must infer the selection criteria.

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