export_iteration_learning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Export' implies writing to output_path, but the description does not state whether existing files are overwritten, what permissions are required, what format the exported suggestions take, or what side effects occur. For a file-producing export tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a description, though its brevity leaves important behavioral and parameter gaps that are not addressed elsewhere.

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-value details need not be explained. However, the description does not clarify where accepted lessons come from, what 'source-bound onboarding suggestions' actually are, how the output file is written, or how this tool fits into the iteration and onboarding workflow. For a two-path export tool with no annotations and no documented parameters, it is not complete enough.

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?

Both required parameters, session_path and output_path, have 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions them. It does not explain the difference between the session source and the output destination, nor what a valid session path represents. The phrase 'source-bound' gives only a marginal hint and does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and transformation: 'Export accepted lessons as source-bound onboarding suggestions.' This is clearer than a tautology and distinguishes the tool's output from siblings like record_iteration_feedback or prepare_ai_onboarding. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify what 'source-bound' means, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as record_iteration_feedback, evaluate_iteration_candidate, or prepare_ai_onboarding. The usage is only implied by the name and description; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are provided.

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