alethia_export_session

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, detailing exactly what the evidence pack contains ('every tool call... timestamps, inputs, outputs, policy decisions, and a SHA-256 integrity hash'). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's output and purpose, though it does not specify the exact format or delivery mechanism of the pack.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by useful detail about contents and usage. Every sentence contributes distinct information without redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it includes, when to use it, and its purpose. The annotations cover safety traits, and the description fills in the behavioral and usage context, achieving a high level of 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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining what the evidence pack will include, which indirectly clarifies the tool's output, even though param semantics are not directly addressed. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 full session recording as a signed evidence pack.' It specifies the resource (session recording) and unique output (signed evidence pack with timestamps, inputs, outputs, policy decisions, and SHA-256 hash), distinguishing it from sibling tools like alethia_audit_wcag or alethia_status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use at the end of an agent loop to produce cryptographic proof of everything the agent did.' It also contextualizes the use case ('Designed for compliance review and chain-of-custody'), though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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