QMetry: Export HTML Report

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the basic safety profile. The description adds that the tool exports a downloadable file and that the backend returns the generated report. It does not go into details like file persistence, authentication needs, or cleanup behavior, but given the annotation coverage, this level of additional context is acceptable.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameters, use cases, example, hints). It is longer than necessary for a simple export tool, but every section contributes value, and the opening sentence delivers the core purpose immediately. The formatting is scannable and not wastefully verbose.

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 carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It states 'Report file generated and returned by the backend,' which is slightly vague but acceptable for a download/export action. The description includes all parameters, required flags, use cases, and an example, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all four parameters. The description re-lists them with similar wording and adds examples and hints that clarify usage (e.g., 'fileName is without extension'). This provides marginal value beyond the schema, but does not significantly enrich parameter understanding. A baseline of 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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Export HTML content as a downloadable report file via the backend.' This identifies the verb (export), resource (HTML content), and output (report file). It is readily distinguished from sibling tools, which focus on fetching, updating, or creating QMetry entities.

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 'Use Cases' section lists three concrete scenarios, and the hints add explicit context: 'Typically called after generating report content from Execute Quality Gate Report results.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool. It does not include explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but the given context is sufficient for an AI agent to select it appropriately.

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