Export a compact Markdown handoff digest of a conversation within a strict character budget, so you can summarize and pass session context without exceeding length limits.
Export a compact Markdown handoff digest of a conversation within a strict character budget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conv_id | Yes | Conversation ID to summarize. | |
| max_chars | No | Maximum character budget for the Markdown digest (default 2000). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the Markdown output format and the strict character-budget constraint, but it does not clarify read-only safety, truncation behavior when the budget is exceeded, or error conditions.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action, output format, and key constraint efficiently.
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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and output format. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves behavioral details such as truncation policy and failure handling unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented. The description only reinforces 'conversation' and 'strict character budget' without adding syntax, format, or edge-case semantics beyond the schema.
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 and resource: export a Markdown handoff digest of a conversation. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as search, sync, lineage, and health report, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 'handoff digest' implies the intended context-transfer use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.