Export Unified Report

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond it: the output is a single JSON envelope, it is MCP-local (implying no external artifact is written), and it carries an explicit schema identifier mcp.unified-report.v1. It stops short of saying whether the envelope is returned inline or persisted to disk, which is the one ambiguity 'export' leaves.

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 sentence with front-loaded verb and no filler; the evidence-type enumeration and schema identifier both carry information an agent needs. It is dense but not padded, though the long object delay before the format clause slightly weakens front-loading.

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 does the important work of naming the return structure and its version, and one optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. The remaining gap, whether the envelope is returned or written and how large it may be, is minor for a read-only aggregation 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents session_id including the 'default' fallback. The phrase 'the session's ... evidence' reinforces the scoping intent but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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) plus the exact resource (the session's workflow/analysis/comparison/chaos/release-check/incident evidence) and the concrete output shape (mcp.unified-report.v1 JSON envelope). The parenthetical 'not an AIOS artifact' explicitly separates it from the sibling chaos.export_aios_run, so an agent can choose between the two without opening either schema.

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 implies the use case (consolidating all evidence types for a session) and rules out the AIOS artifact path, which is useful routing signal. However, it never states when an agent should call this instead of narrower siblings such as tower.evidence, lens.audit_report or chaos.export_aios_run, nor any preconditions for the session.

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