export_curl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose a real behavioral dependency: headers are only available if network_start(capture_bodies=true) was used. It also implies a non-mutating export action, though it leaves the exact return format and whether the command is executed implicit.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The prerequisite/clarification earns its place by preventing a common call failure.

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 3-optional-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description explains the purpose and the one essential precondition. It could be more explicit about what the tool returns, but 'as a runnable curl command' plus full schema param docs makes correct instruction reasonably achievable.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides for id, redact, and url_contains.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair: 'Rebuild a captured request as a runnable curl command'. Its stated goal of replaying or sharing an API call 'without re-deriving its headers' makes the function distinct from siblings like network_get, export_har, and http_request even without naming them.

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 a clear precondition and explicit when-to-use: 'Needs network_start(capture_bodies=true)' and replay/share scenario. However, it does not name any alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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