Export evidence pack

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing the exact artifact set written, the data-boundary guarantee ('never prompts, weights, traces, or raw source'), and that output validates against the local schema. For a file-writing export with security implications, these are the details an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

Three tight sentences: what is produced, what is excluded, how it is validated. Front-loaded with the deliverable and free of filler; every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 annotations covering the mutation profile and a fully-described 4-parameter schema, the remaining need is clarity on what the tool writes and what it refuses to include — both explicitly covered. No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned artifacts.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the include_generated_bodies boundary ('raw source snippets never cross the boundary regardless of this flag'), adding modest value, but it does not explain workspace, output_path, or graph_html behavior beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Export a portable evidence pack') and immediately enumerates the artifacts produced (JSON + Markdown summary, optional graph HTML). No sibling tool in the list overlaps with export/packaging, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

Gives an implied purpose ('for review or later hosted promotion') but never states when to prefer this over siblings such as orangepro_rtm or orangepro_stats, nor any precondition (e.g. must analysis/score be run first). Usage must be inferred from the goal phrasing.

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