export_session

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 that it writes no files, operates only on the current session object, and instructs the caller to return `content` to the user rather than persisting it. It does not describe size limits, latency, or auth requirements, but the privacy/write behavior is clearly conveyed.

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?

One dense paragraph with the trigger condition and privacy constraint front-loaded, and every clause carries information. The heavy symbolic notation (🔵-quotes, rule 0) slightly reduces scannability but does not waste space.

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 read-only export tool with no output schema, the description covers output format, artifact contents, and the return-vs-save contract adequately. The main remaining gap is the untyped nested `session` parameter, which matters given the nested object.

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% for 3 parameters (one nested object), so the description must compensate. It implies `surface` (md default | html) and references abstentions (mapping to `include_abstentions`), but the nested `session` object's expected shape remains entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (exports/returns) and resource (a shareable session proof artifact), and enumerates the artifact's content flow (question → advisors → quotes → synthesis → abstentions panel). It is clear what the tool produces, though it never names or distinguishes itself from the nearby render_session sibling.

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 states the trigger condition — only on EXPLICIT user request ('по ЯВНОМУ запросу юзера — правило 0') — which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. render_session, proof_card) for the non-explicit case.

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