export_session

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating that it exports to a zip archive, includes images, manifest, and optionally undo history. It also mentions later restoration. However, it does not disclose what happens to the resulting file if a file already exists at the path (overwrite vs. error), or any permissions needed. This is a minor gap for a non-destructive export operation.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then listing contents in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, and the reference to import_session is helpful. It could be slightly more compact, but the structure is effective.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool (two parameters, no nested objects) and it has an output schema, which may cover return format. The description provides enough context about what is being exported and points to the counterpart import_session. It lacks a note on path handling (overwrite behavior) and does not mention error conditions, but these are not critical for an export tool. Overall, it's sufficiently complete.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's mention of 'manifest.json with image IDs' and 'optionally undo history' adds context about what the archive contains, which helps understand the include_history parameter's purpose. However, it does not add specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (export), the resource (all images and metadata), and the output format (zip archive). It explicitly lists contents, distinguishing it from simpler save operations like quick_save or save_image, which likely save a single image. This is a specific and unambiguous definition.

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 says 'Use import_session to restore the session later,' which implies this tool is for backup/restore workflows and distinguishes it from single-image save tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like quick_save or save_image or provide exclusionary guidance (e.g., 'use save_image for single image export'), but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool.

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