export_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses noteworthy behavior: everything is inlined for portability, no internet required, long-term renderability. It does not describe output file type, size implications, or whether this is a read-only operation, but the portability behaviors are genuinely useful disclosures beyond what schema conveys.

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 content is compact and front-loaded — a clear first sentence states the purpose, a brief second paragraph explains the portability benefit. No wasted words. Minor deduction for not specifying output format/location, but the prose is tight and well-organized.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete given the schema coverage is 100% and an output schema exists (which handles return-value explanation). Sibling tools are mostly granular operations (get_psd, plot_spectrum), so this aggregate export tool's role is clear. Could add the output file format/extension, but overall adequate.

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%, with well-described parameters (notes, seconds, session_id, include_spectrum all have meaningful descriptions). The description adds context that the tool aggregates traces/spectrum/quality/event log, which hints at how parameters map to sections, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 clearly states the verb ('Write a full review page') plus the resource ('the one artefact to keep from a session'). It enumerates contents (traces, spectrum, quality, event log) and distinguishes itself from sibling plotting/recording tools as a comprehensive export artifact rather than a single-view operation.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you want a permanent, self-contained record of a session ('the one artefact to keep'). It explains the context (opens on any machine, needs no internet, renders years from now). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the framing as the canonical archive tool differentiates it well.

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