vibeside_export_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add two non-obvious traits: the TAR implementation is pure Node.js (no external dependency) and there is safe disk path traversal defense. However, it omits key behaviors for a write-to-disk operation such as overwrite semantics, required permissions, and whether a session must already be recorded.

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 core operation and format list come first and the security note trails. Slightly dense, but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain the return shape (inline string versus base64 buffer), which the schema only gestures at. For an export/mutation tool with no annotations, more behavioral detail on disk writes would be needed to be fully complete.

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 format, pretty, filePath, and filterTypes are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of formats and disk paths adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Export) and resource (recorded telemetry session) and enumerates the output formats, so an agent can identify the operation immediately. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the inverse sibling vibeside_import_session, so sibling differentiation is left to the name.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as vibeside_telemetry_get or vibeside_import_session, nor when to write to disk versus return inline. Usage context is entirely left to inference.

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