export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the persistent side effect (saving a file) and the destination default: '~/.cache/camoufox-research/exports/' when path is custom/auto. It does not mention overwrite behavior or file naming, but the overall behavior is well signaled.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and avoids repeating the schema. The final phrase 'Паттерн data export' is vague and does not add practical guidance, but it does not significantly harm the overall conciseness.

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-parameter export tool, the definition covers purpose, formats, and destination path. The main gap is the 'data' parameter: the exact container, serialization, or expected structure of the data string is underspecified, and the odd final phrase adds no clarity. An agent would still need to infer that 'data' should be the direct result of extract/crawl.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'path' and 'format' by explaining custom vs auto path and the supported formats. However, the required 'data' parameter is only indirectly described as 'result from extract/crawl', leaving ambiguity about what exact string/content should be passed.

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 starts with a concrete action: 'Сохранить результат' (save the result) and a goal location ('в файл'), with target formats explicitly listed. It ties itself to the extract/crawl workflow by saying 'из extract/crawl', which makes the resource clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like session_download, but the export/save intent is unmistakable.

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 phrase 'из extract/crawl' gives useful context: this tool is meant to be used after extraction or crawling, not as a general file-writing tool. It does not provide exclusions or directly mention alternatives, but the workflow context is clear enough for selecting it.

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