session_export

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and no destructive consequences, so the description already starts with a safety baseline. It goes further by disclosing format-specific behaviors: bash produces a runnable curl script that replays against a fresh session, and json strips cookies/storage into editable ops — adding meaningful behavioral context beyond 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 scope statement is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct format with its purpose and output shape — no filler. The content is dense but appropriately sized for a tool that needs to explain three formats.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so for all three formats, including the replay mechanics and stripped data. It doesn't cover error cases (e.g., missing session), but for a read-only export tool the essential usage guidance is present.

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%, so the schema already documents session_id and format in detail. The description reinforces the meaning of each format value (bash default and runnable, jsonl raw log, json editable for flow_run), adding semantic color that helps the agent select the right value without needing to read the full schema.

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?

States the verb 'Export' with the specific resource 'a browser session's recorded action log,' which clearly distinguishes the tool from the many session_* siblings. It also contrasts with flow_run by explaining that json output is replayed server-side, so an agent can tell export apart from the sibling that consumes it.

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?

Provides clear context on when each format is appropriate: bash for shell/cron with zero model tokens, json for replay via flow_run, and jsonl for the raw action log. It names flow_run as the alternative tool for replay, though it doesn't exhaustively cover when not to use each format.

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