jp_lit_export_session

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

The description mentions a side effect: writing to 'exports/' in the repo, which is a write operation. However, it does not disclose whether the session is modified, whether permissions are required, or what happens if the file already exists. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence of moderate length (about 30 words in Japanese). It is reasonably concise but lacks structure such as bullet points or sections. It does not waste words, but could be more efficient in conveying parameter relationships.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, the description only partially covers the purpose. The output schema exists (per context) but is not visible, so the return format is not described. The description fails to explain the significance of 'profile' (full_log, selected, unselected) and 'include_unselected', which are crucial for understanding what gets exported.

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 description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'session_id' (optional) and 'format' (default Markdown). The parameters 'profile', 'output_path', and 'include_unselected' are not explained at all. This leaves the agent without enough context to set these correctly.

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 clearly states that the tool exports a current or past session to the 'exports/' directory, with a default Markdown format. The verb '書き出す' (export) and resource 'セッション' (session) are specific. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jp_lit_export_view', the purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jp_lit_export_view' or 'jp_lit_annotate_session'. There are no indications of prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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