Exportar conversa

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about writing to a local file and supported formats. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or return behavior. This is similar to the get_calls calibration example.

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 a single sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core function and format options.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks information about the return value (does it return a file path or confirmation?) and error conditions. It relies on the schema for parameter requirements and annotations for safety, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 while the description mentions json|md (which hints at the fmt parameter), it does not explain the required chat_id parameter or clarify parameter semantics. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 conversation history to a local file with format options (json|md), which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message or get_messages.

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 implies usage (when you need to export a chat), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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