Export Redacted OTLP JSON Traces

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond them by disclosing that the export is signed with the local Ed25519 identity and that raw context, goals, targets, summaries, and checkpoint state are excluded. This makes the exact behavioral scope clear.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main action and signing behavior in the first sentence and the exclusion details in the second. Every sentence earns its place, and no unnecessary filler is present.

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 a simple one-parameter schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete: it explains what is produced, how it is signed, and what is excluded. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance for choosing this tool over the trace_report sibling.

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 100%, with the only parameter (session_id) described as an opaque Living Stack session identifier. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the full burden; this is the baseline expected for full coverage.

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 identifies a specific operation: converting the verified lifecycle ledger into metadata-only OTLP/JSON trace data and signing it with the workspace Ed25519 identity. It is unambiguous about the resource and output, though it does not differentiate from the sibling tool livingstack.trace_report.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as livingstack.trace_report. The phrase 'verified lifecycle ledger' hints at a prerequisite or intended context, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection rules are stated.

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