Export Joint Trajectories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the content (visual transitions + workflow events correlated by session/trace ID) but does not detail output format or behavior limits, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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, dense sentence that conveys the core functionality without wasted words. It is concise but somewhat jargon-heavy, so it earns a 4 for being efficient yet slightly less accessible than a clearer two-sentence version.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and scope. However, it lacks information about the returned data format and does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling export tool, leaving some gap in completeness for an agent to correctly invoke it in context.

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% with clear descriptions for both 'limit' and 'trace_id'. The description contributes little beyond the schema, merely referencing session/trace correlation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 tool exports 'unified interleaved visual state transitions and workflow graph events,' specifying the verb and resource. It hints at a combined scope but does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'export_visual_trajectories,' so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_visual_trajectories.' It describes what it does but not the context or conditions for choosing it, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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