Export Trajectories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds that output is in JSONL format and focuses on event transition logs, but does not detail pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior beyond what schema parameters imply.

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 sentence with no wasted words, conveying the core action, output format, and intended use. It is both concise and structurally clear.

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?

Given the read-only nature, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return format. It could be more explicit about optional filtering via parameters, but it remains adequate for a straightforward export tool.

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 input schema fully documents all six parameters. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics; it simply names the resource and format, which is consistent with 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 specifies the verb 'Export' and resource 'event transition logs' in JSONL format, which clearly indicates the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'export_joint_trajectories', which is closely related, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 states the purpose 'for fine-tuning models', which provides a clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is evident from this phrasing.

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