export_robot_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the generated artifact, the Page Object Pattern structure, and that output_path controls where the file is written, but it does not mention overwrite behavior, return behavior when output_path is null, or any side effects beyond file creation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a compact, structured Args list. There is no fluff, and every sentence contributes useful 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisite state (inspected elements), all parameters, and output destination. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Minor gaps remain around explicit edge cases such as overwriting existing files, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, but the description's Args block thoroughly explains all six parameters, including that library maps to Playwright or SeleniumLibrary, and that output_path is where the file will be written. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema properties and fully compensates for the coverage gap.

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 generates a complete Robot Framework .resource file containing Variables and Keywords sections based on inspected elements. It is a specific verb+resource statement and is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools, which perform inspection, highlighting, and browser management.

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 'baseado nos elementos inspecionados até o momento' implies the tool should be used after elements have been inspected, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are mostly different in function, yet no direct usage guidance is provided.

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