flow_export

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

The description provides detailed behavior on dependency detection: what values get lifted to variables (verbatim from earlier responses), what stays literal (base64/encoded/JWT-internal, user-supplied literals), and a caveat about over-chaining. This is substantial transparency, especially since no annotations are provided.

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 sentences: the first states the main purpose, the second details the detection algorithm. Both earn their place, though the second is dense. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the window selection (flow_mark or whole buffer), the two output formats, and the dependency detection behavior. Missing sessionId semantics but otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers 3 of 4 parameters with descriptions (format, sinceSeq, includeAll), and the description adds no parameter-specific details. sessionId lacks a description in both schema and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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?

Clearly states the tool exports captured network calls as a JSON summary or HAR document, with specific mention of cross-call dependencies. This distinguishes it from siblings like net_list (which likely lists raw calls) and net_get (which retrieves specific calls).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like net_list or net_get. The mention of 'since the last flow_mark' implies a pairing with flow_mark, but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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