acta_export

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

No annotations provided, and description does not mention side effects, idempotency, or read-only nature. While it hints at workflow, it does not fully disclose behavioral traits.

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 concise sentences: first defines the action, second states the use case. No unnecessary words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers purpose and output format. Could elaborate on how the hash chain is used, but sufficient.

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?

Describes the single parameter 'topic' as a topic slug, adding context beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds value.

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?

Clearly states it exports the full hash chain for a topic, returns entries with hashes for independent verification. Distinct from sibling tools like acta_query (retrieve) or acta_verify (verify).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you need to audit the record independently.' Provides clear context for when to use, though lacks mention of when not to use or alternatives.

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