export_tearsheet

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the schema documents the overwrite behavior of 'path'. The description adds real context beyond that: it is gated on the desktop app being installed and on an Atelier/Portfolio licence, and it enumerates which run types are refused. It does not, however, say what a refusal looks like to the caller.

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 content is efficient, but the structure is poor: it opens with a machine-specific installation/prerequisite paragraph before stating what the tool does, so the actual purpose is buried in the second paragraph. A caller scanning the first line learns about a missing desktop app rather than the tool's function.

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 helpfully states the return shape (ok, path, fmt), plus refusal conditions, licence gating and the sibling alternative. It is close to complete for a 3-param export tool; only the failure/refusal response shape is left 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so fmt, path and run_id are already fully documented, including the png fallback and the overwrite warning. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource — write a one-page tearsheet image/PDF summarising a finished run — and names its return values. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling export_paper ('writes the full paper'), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 when-to-use ('quick shareable summary'), names the alternative (export_paper) and its selection condition, and lists exclusions: research runs, unknown runs and unfinished runs are refused. The licence prerequisite (Atelier or Portfolio) is also stated.

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