Export HTML dashboard

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, closed-world, non-destructive operation, and the description adds useful context: it writes a self-contained HTML artifact to the output folder and returns its path. It would be stronger if it mentioned overwrite behavior or error handling for existing files, but it adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, artifact contents, destination, and return value efficiently.

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 the artifact, its contents, the output location, and the return value, which is sufficient even without an output schema. Minor gaps remain around overwrite behavior and failure conditions, but the core information an agent needs to invoke the tool is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add semantics for last_n or filename beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it writes a self-contained HTML QA dashboard to the output folder and returns its path. It clearly states the artifact and its included sections, but it does not distinguish the tool from the sibling generate_quality_report or clarify how they differ.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'export' and the output folder destination. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of generate_quality_report or other reporting siblings, and no exclusion conditions are given.

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