export_log

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses the format constraint ('must be xes or csv') and path resolution logic (workspace vs absolute/relative). This goes beyond the schema and provides useful behavioral details.

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?

Two sentences and a few lines are entirely sufficient. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose, and structured for easy reading.

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's simplicity, an output schema exists (reducing need to describe return), and the description covers key usage details. Missing log_id explanation and file overwrite behavior, but still fairly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies the format and path parameters (allowed values, path behavior) but does not mention the log_id parameter. Partial coverage, adequate for 2 of 3.

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's purpose: 'Write a log from the registry to disk.' It uses a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('log from registry'), and is distinct from siblings which are mostly abstract or discovery 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?

The description implies usage (when you have a log_id and want to save to disk) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like load_event_log. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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