pvsyst_export_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that a ZIP file is written to a specific directory, warns the archive may contain private data, and clarifies that only the path is returned rather than the contents. It does not mention permissions or whether an existing archive is overwritten, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first covers action and destination, the second covers the privacy caveat and return shape. Front-loaded with the action and no filler.

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 parameterless, non-destructive export with no output schema, the description covers destination, artifact type, privacy risk, and return value. Only the overwrite/conflict behavior and any size or permission constraints are left unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing further for the description to disambiguate beyond noting the fixed output location, which it does.

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) and resource (CLI diagnostic logs) plus the exact output artifact and destination (ZIP under workspace/Results). No sibling tool exports logs, so the agent can identify it immediately from name plus description.

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 '[Setup & License]' tag implies a diagnostic/troubleshooting context, but the description never says when to reach for this versus other setup tools like pvsyst_capabilities or pvsyst_license_info. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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