Export Eden Diagnostics

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

With no readOnly/destructive annotations carrying the safety profile, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the output is bounded, path-redacted, and explicitly excludes keys, firmware, game content, patches, saves, configuration, environment variables, and tokens. This adds significant context beyond what the schema provides, though it omits details like authentication requirements or where the ZIP is stored.

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 entire description is one tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core output (ZIP) and follows with useful constraints and exclusions. Every phrase adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 that an output schema exists (reducing the need to explain return values), the description covers the essential content of the ZIP and its boundaries. It lacks usage context and parameter mapping, but the explicit exclusions and bounded nature provide enough context for a moderately complex export tool. Missing guidance on when to use it is a notable gap, but overall it is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. While terms like 'bounded', 'path-redacted', and 'optional screenshot' loosely map to max_bytes, redact_paths, and include_screenshot, there is no explicit parameter-level guidance, leaving the agent to infer semantics from names and defaults alone. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a bounded, path-redacted ZIP containing a diagnostic report, structured log entries, manifest hashes, and an optional screenshot. This specific deliverable distinguishes it from siblings like eden_get_logs or eden_diagnose_game_issue, making the purpose 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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not contrast with eden_get_logs or eden_diagnose_game_issue, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list.

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