Экспорт результата

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description usefully adds the default output location (~/.cache/camoufox-research/exports/) when no path is given. However, it does not explain the destructive semantics the annotation implies — e.g., whether it overwrites an existing file at a user-supplied path.

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?

Three labeled lines (WHEN/WHAT/NOT) with zero filler and the usage condition front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers usage, formats, and default destination adequately for a simple 3-param tool. The remaining gap is destructive/overwrite behavior, which the annotation hints at but the description never addresses.

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 carry the load. It explains the format choices (json/csv/md) and the path behavior (own path or auto cache location), which compensates for two of three params. It does not clarify the required `data` parameter, and omits the 'markdown' enum alias present in the schema.

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 clear verb+resource framing (export a result to a file) and names the concrete output formats (CSV for tables, JSON for automation, MD for report). It distinguishes this tool from the conversation/synthesis path and from the many fetch/research siblings by scoping it to disk output.

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 explicit WHEN/WHAT/NOT structure states when to use it (result needed as a file on disk), what it produces, and when NOT to use it (result goes into conversation and synthesis → pass text as-is). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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