piqrypt_export_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that certified requires a Pro license and the export is self-contained. But it doesn't mention if the tool is read-only, any authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and key option. Highly efficient.

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?

Moderately complete: describes the export as self-contained and verifiable, but lacks details on the returned data structure (no output schema) and doesn't cover error conditions or limitations. It could elaborate on what 'complete audit trail' entails.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it explains the certified parameter's purpose (legal admissibility) and implies output_format through 'portable JSON archive', but mostly repeats schema info.

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 complete agent audit trail to a portable JSON archive. It uses a specific verb 'export' and identifies the resource, and the sibling tools (search, stamp, verify) are distinct, so purpose 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?

Provides good context for when to set certified=true (legal admissibility) and mentions the export is self-contained and verifiable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare with siblings for alternative actions.

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