export_diagnostic_bundle

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, so the tool is already understood to be read-only. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as output format, potential side effects, or operational considerations. It does not contradict the annotation, and the annotation lowers the burden, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 description is a single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the 'Export' action and immediately conveying the key content. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 should clarify what the tool returns or where the exported bundle is delivered, but it does not. It also fails to explain how the remoteDebuggingUrl parameter factors into the export. The description covers the basic purpose but leaves important context for invocation and result handling 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?

The schema has a single parameter remoteDebuggingUrl with no description, and the overall schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter at all, leaving its purpose and expected format completely opaque. With low coverage, the description was required to compensate but did not.

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 'Export' and identifies a distinct resource: a compact support bundle containing environment, AI runtime, browser, and setup diagnostics. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like export_har_snapshot and export_rebuild_bundle.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as diagnose_environment or other export tools. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or concrete use cases, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the general nature of the description.

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