export_portable_snapshot

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

The annotations only carry destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond this by disclosing that the call writes a file immediately to the confined export directory, is rejected without writing unless confirm=true, and returns a filename, size, schema version, and SHA-256 checksum. It also adds useful traits the annotations cannot express: deterministic and secret-free output.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single crisp sentence, followed by a compact paragraph that covers behavior, safety gate, return contract, and sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema content.

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?

With no output schema present, the description correctly takes on the return contract itself, listing filename, size, schema version, and SHA-256 checksum. For a 2-parameter tool with no nested objects, the description covers invocation, safety confirmation, destination, and verification path — nothing needed to call it correctly 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 both parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description largely restates the confirm safety gate ('rejected without writing unless confirm=true') that the schema already explains, adding no new constraints or syntax details beyond the baseline.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (export), a specific resource (deterministic secret-free JSON snapshot), and a scope (local confined file). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling export_network_report by mentioning that it produces raw JSON rather than human-readable HTML/CSV, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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 explicitly names the alternative and the selection condition: 'Use export_network_report for human-readable HTML/CSV instead of the raw JSON model.' It also implies the follow-up workflow by pointing to verify_snapshot for later checksum verification, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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