export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it writes a local file and returns path, size, and token estimate, plus advises chunked reading. It still omits details such as overwrite behavior, file location, permissions, and output format specifics.

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. The main effect is front-loaded, followed by a compact usage note for bulk analysis.

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 a tool with five undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers return values and a post-export workflow, but it leaves parameter meaning, filtering semantics, file format details, and selection behavior largely unexplained.

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% for five parameters. The description mentions a 'period/topic' and 'full text', which loosely relates to date/chat filters, but it never explains from, chats, media, since, or until. It 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 gives a specific verb and resource: writing a period/topic's full text in read's format to a local file. It also states the return values (path, size, token estimate). It hints at differentiation from the sibling read tool, but does not name or contrast alternatives such as search or stats.

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?

It gives one implied usage context: bulk analysis, where the agent should read the exported file in chunks. However, it does not explicitly say when to use export instead of siblings like read, search, stats, or chats, nor does it list exclusions.

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