export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the sandboxing constraint (paths confined to DMINE_EXPORT_DIR, absolute paths and '..' rejected) and the return shape (dict with path and message_count). It stops short of covering failure modes (missing channel, empty archive) or auth requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and format, then structured Args/Returns sections. Every line adds information; the only minor cost is the docstring-style formatting overhead.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, path safety rules, all parameters, and the return shape. The main gap is guidance on when this tool is the right choice versus its siblings.

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%, so the Args section is doing all the work, and it defines each of the four parameters meaningfully: channel accepts an ID or full URL, format enumerates 'jsonl'/'md', since is an exclusive id lower bound, and out is a filename relative to the export dir with a documented default. This meaningfully compensates for the bare schema.

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') and resource ('a channel from the archive') plus the output formats (jsonl or markdown). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like status, capture, recent, search, and channels, which are non-file-producing operations.

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 never says when to choose export over siblings such as recent, search, or capture, nor does it state any exclusions or preconditions for use. The purpose is inferable, but no routing guidance is provided.

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