export_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it explains file side effects, the .npz naming convention, the non-overwrite guarantee for previous formats' npz files, the trigger=0 time convention, and automatic rate/depth use for csv/txt. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 dense and mostly front-loaded, starting with a one-sentence summary followed by parameter-oriented notes. It earns its length, though some phrasing is cryptic such as 'end needs start' and 'summarized here'.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation details, file output, format selection, and parsing behavior. Missing details include the default filename/path when filename is omitted and the exact shape or location of the 'summary' returned.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining all five parameters: filename with format selection, channels subset, time_start_s/time_end_s cropping, and parse=true behavior. It adds concrete constraints such as 'end needs start' and the .npz naming convention, giving the agent far more than the raw schema provides.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it exports the current capture and parses kvdat to .npz. It is more specific than a mere restatement of the tool name, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with export_decoded, so the agent may still need to compare schemas to distinguish them.

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 'current capture' and the label 'entry point for offline analysis' imply when this tool is appropriate. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as export_decoded or parse_file, nor does it say when not 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.