export_forestRetrieve a complete portable snapshot of the learning forest, including append-only records and evidence, for transfer, backup, or external verification.
Read the complete portable forest state, including append-only learning records and evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by clarifying that the export is portable and includes append-only learning records and evidence, which goes beyond what the annotations alone express.
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 a single well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, and every qualifier ('complete', 'portable', 'append-only') adds meaningful scope without 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 no-argument, read-only export operation, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns in broad terms. It does not explicitly specify the output format or file type, but 'portable' and the strong annotation set make this adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 description does not need to explain parameter meanings. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool, and the schema already covers all 0 parameters at 100% coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('complete portable forest state'), and further specifies it includes append-only learning records and evidence. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like forest_overview and search_knowledge.
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 is for obtaining a full state snapshot rather than a summary or search result, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like forest_overview or get_learning_queue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.