jp_lit_export_session

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: the session is only read and not modified, and the default Markdown output is formatted for human readability. Annotations state readOnlyHint=false because the tool writes a file, yet the description clarifies that the source session itself is untouched, which prevents a common misreading. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact: two sentences that front-load the core action, then add the default format, the important safety note about the session not being modified, and the sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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?

Despite having seven parameters, the full parameter semantics live in the input schema, and an output schema is present. The description supplies the missing operational context: where output goes, default formatting, read-only treatment of the session, and which sibling to use for lighter exports. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description only restates session_id, output_path, and the default Markdown format, without adding meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not elevate it.

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 and resource: 'export/write file' for the research session identified by session_id. It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from jp_lit_export_view by stating that the latter handles only cache lists or re-extraction results. This is more than sufficient for an agent to know which export tool to select.

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 states the primary use case: writing a session to exports/ or output_path. It also gives an explicit exclusion and alternative: if you only need to write cache lists or re-extraction results, use jp_lit_export_view. This is clear routing between the two export-related siblings.

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