Export a debugging session as a written knowledge-base entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the file write and index refresh behavior, and describes the content of the summary. It doesn't mention error conditions or prerequisites, but it adequately conveys the side effects.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second adds valuable usage guidance and analogy. Every sentence 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?

Given the simple schema (1 parameter) and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what files are written, what content is included, when to call, and why it matters, covering all necessary context for an agent to decide.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by embedding <sessionId> in the output path, implying the parameter is the session identifier. For a single string parameter with a minLength constraint, this provides sufficient meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool writes a specific file (.log-probe/knowledge/<sessionId>.md) and refreshes an index, using specific verbs and resource names. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing it as the durable, written record, unlike session getters or execution tools.

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?

It explicitly advises calling the tool 'once a session has reached a conclusion (or is being abandoned)', providing clear timing. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context makes the choice clear.

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