ruyi_export_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that data can be saved to a file, but does not state whether the tool is read-only or modifies browser state, nor does it describe file-writing behavior such as overwriting or permissions. This leaves meaningful uncertainty about side effects.

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 concise, with the action and data types front-loaded. The final sentence about being the core tool is mildly redundant but still provides context, making it appropriately sized overall.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify the structure of the returned JSON, which it does not. It also omits prerequisites such as a currently attached browser. It covers the basic purpose and save option but lacks these important details for full usability.

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% since each parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only mentioning UserAgent and URL as part of the export even though they are not in the default 'include' list, which is useful but ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool exports the current browser session state and enumerates specific data (Cookie, localStorage, sessionStorage, UserAgent, URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ruyi_get_cookies by covering the full session rather than individual components, and it explicitly mentions the cross-tool reuse purpose.

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?

It explains the tool's role as a core session-bridging utility for js-reverse-mcp, ruyitrace, and others, providing clear use-case context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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