pix_export_event_list

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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description need not repeat those. It adds that the output is a full CSV at a user-selected path, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, failure modes, or whether the file is created/truncated. There is no contradiction with 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?

One tight sentence states the core behavior immediately and includes a useful command reference without any filler. Every element earns its place.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool has seven parameters with no schema-level descriptions and the description omits the required capture_id and all optional controls. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call without additional external knowledge.

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 compensate. It only clarifies that 'destination' is a caller-chosen path; the required 'capture_id' and all optional parameters such as counters, queue_name, counter_groups, counter_regexes, and timeout_seconds are left unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Write'), a clear resource ('full event-list CSV'), and a destination ('caller-chosen path'). It also differentiates from sibling listing/search/export tools by emphasizing CSV export, and the parenthetical 'pixtool save-event-list' reinforces the operation.

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 this tool is for saving a complete event list to a file, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings like pix_list_events or pix_export_to_cpp. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are stated.

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