omni_export_annotations

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the output is "ready-to-run" scripts, which is useful, but it never discloses whether existing files at output_path are overwritten, where output lands if output_path is omitted, whether the session must be live, or what the tool returns on success/failure. For a write-to-disk export operation, these omissions are significant.

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 dense sentence with the action and artifact scope front-loaded and the format list trailing; no filler or redundant restatement of the title. The parenthetical extension list is compact and informative rather than wasteful.

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 is simple (three params, one required, no nesting) and the description covers what is exported and into which formats. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should have covered the return value (path? manifest?) and the side effect of writing files, which it does not.

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 documented in the schema and a baseline of 3 applies. The description does add a little value by mapping format names to concrete file extensions (.py, .dd64.json), but it says nothing extra about session_or_target resolution or output_path safety beyond what the schema states.

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 ("Export") and enumerates the exact artifacts exported (bookmarks, comments, symbol renames, Scylla IAT slots) plus the four target formats with file extensions. It is unambiguous about what the tool produces; the only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, though no sibling tool appears to overlap.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool, no prerequisites (e.g., whether an active OmniReverse session is required), and no mention of alternatives or when not to use it. The reader must infer the entire usage context from the name and the artifact list.

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