Export flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output artifacts (YAML flow and report) and does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation or overwriting), prerequisites (e.g., needing an active recording), or error conditions. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 exactly two sentences and 19 words, with the main verb and object front-loaded. Every word earns its place: it clarifies the output types and gives a direct pointer to the next step (run_flow). No fluff or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and outputs, but it is not fully complete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the recording must be stopped), output location or file naming, or how it differs from export_report. The pointer to run_flow mitigates some ambiguity, but additional context would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds contextual meaning by referencing the implicit input ('the recorded session') and the output format, which aligns with the schema's emptiness. No parameter documentation is needed since there are no parameters to explain.

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's function: 'Export the recorded session as a replayable Maestro flow (YAML) plus a human-readable report.' It uses a specific verb ('Export') with a specific resource ('recorded session') and specifies the output formats. This distinguishes it from siblings like export_report (which likely only produces a report) and run_flow (which consumes the exported flow).

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 implies usage after recording a session ('Export the recorded session') and provides a pointer to run_flow ('Run it later with run_flow'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like export_report or whether prerequisites exist (e.g., recording must be stopped). The guidance is implied rather than explicit, earning a mid-range score.

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