export_session_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Generates' a comprehensive report and returns it, plus details the included components. However, it does not clarify whether 'export' writes to disk or simply returns a string, nor does it address potential side effects or permission requirements. This is a moderate gap given the ambiguity of the word 'export'.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of use cases, an Args section with parameter explanations, and a Returns line. Examples are valuable and not duplicated in the schema. Every section earns its place; it is appropriately detailed without being bloated.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return value, and usage examples. It is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions, but the tool description compensates fully: it explains format options, the 'include' list with each item's meaning, and provides three concrete examples showing parameter combinations. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema property titles and defaults.

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 'Export comprehensive session summary for team sharing' and goes into detail about producing ADRs, consultation history, and constraints/patterns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session_summary (which likely retrieves a summary) and export_consultation (which exports a single consultation). The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit use cases under 'Perfect for': onboarding, documenting decisions, sharing knowledge, and creating reports. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives like get_session_summary, but the use-case list makes the intended scenarios clear, earning a strong score rather than a top score.

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