export_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It openly marks the operation as WRITE with medium risk, describes file output (including the .oscal.json naming), and outlines key limitations of the OSCAL format (unresolved control IDs, no 'partially satisfied' state). It does not address overwrite behavior or permissions, but the disclosed details are substantial and actionable.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line summary followed by a focused OSCAL caveat and a compact Args block. Every sentence provides necessary information; the OSCAL note is relevant because it explains a critical edge case and points to an alternative.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: input formats, output behavior, file naming, and key limitations. It could mention what the function returns (if anything) or overwrite semantics, but the current content is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most contexts.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter: bundle_path (path to bundle .json), fmt (enumerated allowed values), and out_path (default behavior alongside the bundle). This adds meaning that the bare schema lacks and enables correct invocation.

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 tool renders a bundle to markdown, CSV, JSON, or OSCAL formats, with a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('bundle'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool oscal_assessment_results by noting that this tool writes a file while the sibling provides inline output.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to render a bundle to a file) and explicitly directs users to read oscal_assessment_results first when inline output and limitations are needed. It does not exhaustively enumerate exclusions but provides sufficient guidance for choosing between the primary alternatives.

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