export_cached_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the operation reads from a local cache, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it triggers a sync, what the returned entity looks like, or any side effects on the cache. This is a significnt gap for a tool that could conceptually modify or clear cache state.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no wasted words. The format options and filter mention are appropriately concise.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the export actually returns or produces. It only says 'Export messages... as JSON or CSV', without describing the response structure, file delivery, or how 'local cache' data is bounded. This is incomplete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it and how to interpret the result.

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?

The input schema already describes four of five parameters, so baseline is 3. The description's 'with optional filters' vaguely covers the filter parameters but adds no extra detail about how they behave; it does not, for example, clarify 'limit' semantics or chat_id format. The high schema coverage carries the weight here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('messages from the local cache') and mentions formats and filters, making the core function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'export_chat', so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'from the local cache' implies this is for locally stored messages rather than live/full chat data, giving some context. Yet there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over export_chat, clear_cache, or get_new_messages, and no mention of exclusions.

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