muse_export_session

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose. It does not state that the tool is non-destructive (read-only), nor does it mention authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects like file writing. The description is too minimal for a mutation-free guarantee.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads the verb and resource, lists formats, and gives use cases. Ideal conciseness for a focused description.

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 an export tool with no output schema and well-documented parameters, the description covers the core functionality and use cases. It could mention that the tool does not modify sessions or what happens when outputPath is provided, but overall it is adequate.

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%, so parameters are well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the burden.

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?

Clearly states the tool exports vibe coding sessions to Markdown, JSON, HTML, and mentions use cases (documentation, backups, reports). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like muse_create_session_log or muse_generate_dev_document, which also produce documentation.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'creating shareable documentation, backups, or reports from session history.' Does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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