export_decoded

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses prerequisites, analyzer indexing semantics, and the need to wait for decoding. However, it does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, what the default filename behavior is, what errors may occur, or what the tool returns on success or failure.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the remaining sentences provide necessary usage context without fluff. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 two-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main operational steps but leaves gaps around filename semantics, default behavior, and failure/return behavior. It is adequate but not complete enough for an agent to confidently handle edge cases.

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 explains that analyzer is a 0-based index into the GUI analyzer list, which adds real meaning. The filename parameter is left entirely unexplained, though its name and the .csv/.txt mention provide some implicit context.

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 tool exports a protocol analyzer's decode results to .csv/.txt, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling export_data, but the focus on 'decode results' vs. raw data is reasonably distinct.

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 gives practical guidance: the analyzer must already exist in the KingstVIS GUI, cannot be added via the Socket API, and the agent should wait after start() for decoding to finish. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for a straightforward export operation.

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