export_data

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it identifies the source as ~/.iaiops/data.db, warns the output preview is bounded to 200 rows to avoid flooding, and notes the parquet format requires pip install 'iaiops[export].' These details are valuable and not present in the annotations. No contradictions with the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint.

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 organized with a clear one-line summary, followed by source context, arg breakdown, return structure, and an example. Every sentence carries essential information—no filler or repetition. Despite its length, it earns its space for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

The description is complete: it covers the source, format options, required dependency, all parameters, output schema (since no output schema is provided), and a concrete example. Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema), this description covers all bases needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: fmt values, since/until as ISO-8601 inclusive bounds, endpoint and tag as filters, limit with range and default, and out_path with default pattern. This goes far beyond the raw 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Export collected samples from the LOCAL SQLite sink to a file.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting the source is the local SQLite store, not a live device read, which differentiates it from historian_query and live-read tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: data comes from the local SQLite sink written by historian_push(sink="sqlite"), and explicitly states 'NOT a live device read.' It also gives format selection guidance (csv, sqlite, parquet) and mentions the optional dependency for parquet. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools (e.g., historian_query) or states 'when not to use,' so it stops short of a full usage guide.

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