report_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context: the payload is the canonical JSON report and is byte-equivalent to the CLI and REST paths. It omits size/rate-limit or auth details, but that is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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?

One dense front-loaded sentence plus a short 'Read-only.' clause; no filler. The trailing read-only note duplicates the annotation, costing a small amount of precision but not clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description adequately characterizes the return as the canonical JSON report with parity to the CLI/REST payloads. For a one-parameter export tool this is close to complete, with only the parameter format left unspecified.

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% for the single scan_run_id parameter (no type/format note in the schema). The description partially compensates by indicating the report belongs to 'a scan run', implying the ID identifies a scan, but gives no format or source guidance for the value.

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 (canonical JSON report of a scan run), plus anchors it to known equivalents (CLI `report export --as json`, REST `GET /scans/{id}/report`). No sibling tool produces a report, so the purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable.

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 (fetching the canonical report payload) but never states when to choose this over siblings like list_issues, quality_score, or contract_validate, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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