safari_export_storage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the export as JSON and mentions the storage types included, but does not specify side effects (e.g., read-only, no deletions), behavior on empty storage, performance considerations, or potential size limits. Basic transparency is present but could be more comprehensive.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is exported, the format, and a common use case. It is clear about the scope (cookies + localStorage + sessionStorage, excluding IndexedDB, which has separate sibling tools). However, it could be more complete by mentioning that the operation is non-destructive and whether it works on the current page's storage only.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly listing what is exported (cookies, localStorage, sessionStorage), which clarifies the scope. Per the calibration baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 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 storage state: cookies, localStorage, sessionStorage), and the output format (JSON). It distinguishes itself from granular sibling tools like safari_get_cookies and safari_local_storage by offering a bulk export, and includes a use case (saving and restoring login sessions).

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 a use case ('useful for saving and restoring login sessions') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like individual storage getters or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or excluded scenarios.

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