Export a saved native study template and hash to a confined JSON artifact.
Export a saved native study template and hash to a confined JSON artifact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | No | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| template_id | Yes | ||
| expected_layout_id | No | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful notion of a 'confined' artifact and hashing, but is silent on where the artifact lands, whether an existing one is overwritten, and why the operation is not idempotent — gaps that matter because the schema itself mentions 'before writing'.
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?
One tightly worded sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. Its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing in it is redundant.
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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits the destination of the 'confined JSON artifact', the role of target_id and expected_layout_id, and any return-value shape. An agent would have to open the schema and still lack the output story.
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 67% and the required template_id has no schema description at all. The description says nothing about template_id, target_id (the tab context), or expected_layout_id (the mismatch guard), so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameter or explain how the guard interacts with the export.
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?
States a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('saved native study template'), and the output form ('hash' + 'confined JSON artifact'), which is more informative than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, tell the agent how this differs from close siblings like study_template_get or study_template_snapshot, which read similarly.
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?
No statement of when to reach for this over study_template_get, study_template_snapshot, or study_template_apply, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case (portable/offline copy of a saved template) entirely from the word 'Export'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.