emu_export_snapshot

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description must expose side effects and behavior. It only says the state is exported and persisted, leaving out whether an existing snapshot is overwritten, how the snapshot is identified, whether evidence/call history are included, and what the tool returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that conveys the main intent without fluff. It is compact and well structured, but it sacrifices valuable details that the number of parameters and a lack of annotations demand.

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?

The description is far too minimal for a tool with five parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotation support. An agent has almost no information to correctly set inputs or interpret the result of the export.

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 0% description coverage, and the text does not mention any of the five parameters (id, name, createdAt, includesEvidence, includesCallHistory). There is no clue about what each parameter does, how it affects the export, or what defaults apply.

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 explicitly states an action ('export') applied to a specific resource ('the current emulator state') with a clear outcome ('a persisted snapshot'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling snapshot tools like list, import, and load.

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 no guidance on when to export versus listing, importing, or loading snapshots. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or situations where an alternative sibling should be preferred.

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