Export protocol schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies state, or what side effects (if any) exist. 'Export' suggests a non-mutating operation, but this is left implicit.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately brief for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand invocation requirements or expected results. It does not describe the output format or return value, which is a significant gap for a tool that generates a schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely refers to 'inferred fields' which likely maps to the 'fields' parameter. It does not explain the 'name' parameter or the structure of field objects (kind, length, offset, etc.), leaving the agent without necessary context.

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 action ('Export') and the resource ('inferred fields as a compact proto-like schema'), which distinguishes it from siblings like proto_infer_fields or proto_visualize_state. The purpose is specific, though it could more explicitly contrast with alternative 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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. 'For review' implies a use case but does not clarify prerequisites or the relationship to sibling tools like proto_infer_fields.

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