Arsenkin: export result

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the export is bounded, carries provenance, is free, and makes no provider call. It stops short of saying what happens for a missing/unsaved job or what the bounds do on overflow.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, the usage cue second, cost/behavior third. No repetition of the schema or annotations, and each sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is rightly omitted. With zero schema descriptions on three parameters, though, the description should have covered job_id expectations and the format enum; the cost/behavioral note is good but the parameter story is incomplete.

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 carries the param burden. It clarifies format (JSONL/CSV) and that output is bounded (implying max_rows), but never enumerates the accepted format values or explains max_rows default/limits, and job_id semantics are untouched.

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 a specific verb (export) plus resource (a saved job's result) and the output formats it produces (bounded JSONL/CSV), which is enough to read it apart from get_result/result_table. It does not name the sibling it is exclusive of, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

"Use for spreadsheets/files" is a real conditional hint pointing at downstream file consumption, and the cost note implies when it is cheap to call. However, it never contrasts with the obvious alternatives (arsenkin_get_result, arsenkin_result_table), leaving the agent to infer why it would export instead of reading the result table.

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