Export local finding report

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds valuable transparency by confirming the draft is local and never disclosed, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not address idempotency or error conditions.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the safety guarantee (never submits/publishes) is stated succinctly. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose and behavioral safety but lacks parameter semantics, prerequisites, and output format details. Given the output schema exists, return values are partially covered, but the zero-coverage parameters and missing usage context leave gaps.

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 should explain the three required parameters (case_id, finding_id, method) and the method enum. It provides no guidance on their meaning or expected values, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 writes a local Markdown draft for an authorized finding, distinguishing it from sibling tools that assess, record evidence, or submit reports. The verb 'write' and resource 'local Markdown draft' are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for drafting (never submits/publishes), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like research_assess_finding or research_record_evidence. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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