export_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses that lossy steps (coordinate tap/swipe, focused-field type, regex tapText) are emitted as commented '# TODO[unstable]' lines plus a warnings[] list, never silently excluded. This is excellent transparency about edge cases and output behavior.

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 paragraph that is informative but slightly verbose with phrases like 'the engineer→QA bridge'. It front-loads the main purpose and is mostly clear, but could be more concise. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 no output schema, the description explains the output format (commented lines for lossy steps, warnings list) and transpilation behavior for selector-based steps. It covers major behavioral aspects but does not mention prerequisites or limitations beyond what schema implies. Completeness is good but not perfect.

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?

Both parameters ('bundleId' and 'steps') are fully described in the input schema with detailed descriptions. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool exports a run_steps action sequence to a reusable Maestro flow, specifying it as an 'engineer→QA bridge'. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_flow, run_steps, and validate_flow.

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 implies when to use: when you want to convert a run_steps sequence into a durable Maestro flow. It mentions that lossy steps become TODOs, hinting at needed remediation. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context makes it reasonably clear.

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