pleach_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that tool dumps are elided, transcripts are truncated at max_chars, and the output is markdown. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't specify how truncation is signaled or how output is delivered.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences deliver purpose and key limitations with no waste. Every word earns its place, including the alternative tool recommendation.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description gives sufficient context: output format, elision, truncation, and when to use a sibling. Minor gaps include absence of explicit return delivery method, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the truncation behavior tied to max_chars but adds no substantive meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool renders a session's conversation as readable markdown with tool dumps elided. It distinguishes from the sibling pleach_summary by contrasting truncation with whole-branch digest.

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?

Explicitly recommends pleach_summary for whole-branch digests, providing a clear alternative for a different use case. It also notes the local/free nature, but lacks broader when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond that.

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