Export a consultation as a record to commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure and succeeds: it states the output format (Markdown), what is included, what is excluded ('Nothing is summarised... nothing is scored'), that the operation is non-writing ('returned, not written'), and that it reads on-disk history. This is far beyond a minimal description.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds details in a logical order; every sentence contributes either behavioral scope, content expectations, or usage guidance. Despite being three sentences, it is efficient for the information it must convey without annotations or output schema.

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 two simple optional-looking parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers output format, contents, non-mutation, and data source. The main missing piece is an explicit statement of the required/forbidden parameter combination (exactly one of chain_id/group_id), which prevents full completeness.

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 chain_id and group_id. It does: chain_id selects a consultation, group_id selects a fan-out. It stops short of stating whether exactly one is required or what happens if both/neither are provided, which leaves some ambiguity for invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Render one consultation (chain_id) or one fan-out (group_id) as Markdown.' It details the exact contents of the output (brief, answers, verdicts, unchecked marks) and distinguishes itself from write-oriented siblings by saying 'The text is returned, not written.'

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 provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate: to export a consultation/fan-out as a decision record in the repository, and it notes that on-disk history lets earlier sessions be exported. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or call out when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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