export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short. It reveals the export contents and that output lands in 'a folder', but says nothing about where that folder is, whether existing files are overwritten, the size/time cost, or the important fact that a session export contains credential material.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and destination come first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool that writes sensitive data to disk.

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 no-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema operation that writes session credentials to disk, the description omits destination path, overwrite behavior, and safety warnings. An agent cannot confidently predict the side effects or outcome of calling it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter meaning is missing because none exist.

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 (Export) and enumerates the resources involved (account session, mirror, config) plus the destination (a folder). It is distinguishable from sibling export_contacts, though the term 'mirror' is jargon that isn't explained.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as export_contacts or grab/cached. No prerequisites, no mention of what state the account must be in, and no indication of when exporting is appropriate or inadvisable.

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