Exportar caso o informe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-a-file nature is covered; the description adds useful behavior (mtgx embeds the investigation memory, inline=true also returns the Markdown report). However it never states where the file is written, whether an existing file is overwritten, or what the response contains besides the inline report, which are the real open questions for a non-idempotent write tool.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the export action and the format enumeration before the inline note. Slightly run-on with nested parentheticals, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it only covers the inline=true case. It omits what a normal export returns (file path, download reference, size) and does not resolve where the artifact lands, leaving a meaningful gap for an export tool.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains what each format is useful for and clarifies that inline returns the Markdown in the response rather than only writing it. It still does not clarify that layout is only relevant when format=mtgx, which the schema phrases ambiguously.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Exporta a fichero') and the resource (caso/informe), and enumerates every supported output format including the natively specialized mtgx. It is immediately distinguishable from the inverse sibling osint_import_graph and from read-oriented siblings like osint_get_case_summary.

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?

Goes beyond a bare format list by attaching a purpose to several formats (graphml for SIEM/SOAR and Gephi, report_md/report_html for an executive report, mtgx for the native graph with investigation memory), which effectively tells the agent which format to pick. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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