capture_export_calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not: it never says overwrite semantics, whether an existing output_path errors, what permissions/locks are needed, or whether the export is destructive. 'bounded' and the format list are the only behavioral hints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good structurally. However, its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy, so it is adequate but not exemplary.

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 10-parameter export tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description is far from complete, though the presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining the return shape. Required inputs (file_path, output_path) and mutation risks go unexplained.

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 0% and there are 10 parameters. The description only implies output_format (JSON/CSV) and paging via limit/start_index; it says nothing about file_path, output_path, overwrite, include_data, max_data_bytes, resolve_definitions, or process_index, leaving most parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 sentence names a specific verb (Export) and resource (saved call-record page) and notes the two output formats, so an agent knows what it does. It does not distinguish the tool from near-siblings like capture_extract_call_payload or capture_call_records, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this over the many other capture tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a capture must already be saved/loaded). 'bounded page' hints at incremental export but does not route the agent.

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