Export game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful output semantics: JSON is the full history/state, FEN is a position snapshot, and PGN is a mainline export. However, it does not disclose how output is returned, whether any side effects occur, or what constraints exist on the export.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and efficiently packs the three format distinctions into clear, parallel clauses. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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, the description covers the key format choices and gives some detail on each. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around when to choose this tool over get_state, what exactly 'supported PGN mainline' means, and what the return payload looks like.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does for the format parameter by explaining what each enum value yields: full JSON, FEN snapshot, or PGN mainline. The game_id parameter is not explained, though its name and the schema make its role fairly inferable.

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 clearly states the action 'Export' and the resource 'game', and it specifies three concrete output forms: full JSON history/state, FEN position snapshot, and PGN mainline. This is a specific verb-plus-resource description that makes the tool's function obvious, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_state.

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 is given about when to use export_game versus get_state, import_game, or the other siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection hints; the only implied usage is that exporting is a way to retrieve serialized game data.

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