export_sarif

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool runs a scan and exports results, but does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the scan is destructive. The description adds context about SARIF format but lacks behavioral details beyond the basic operation.

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, no waste. First sentence states the core action, second adds valuable context about SARIF format and integration platforms. Efficiently structured.

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?

Output schema exists, schema coverage is 100%, and the description explains the output format (SARIF) and CI/CD integration purpose. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like import_sarif or other scan tools. Overall, it is adequate for the given complexity and structured fields.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, except for the context about SARIF being an industry standard. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters adequately.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs a SAST scan and exports results in SARIF 2.1.0 format for CI/CD integration. The verb 'run a SAST scan and export' with the specific resource 'SARIF format' distinguishes it from siblings like import_sarif or other scan-only tools.

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?

Explicitly mentions usage for CI/CD integration and lists common platforms (GitHub Code Scanning, GitLab SAST, Azure DevOps). However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or compare to alternatives like import_sarif or other scan tools. The context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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