export_immune_lineage_report

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses scope (only episodes adjudicated in this session) and output contents (lineage, verdict counts, integrity flag), but omits export format, whether the operation is read-only/safe, required permissions, and any rate or size limits.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema export tool, the description partially compensates by naming the returned data (lineage, counts, integrity flag). It still leaves format, permissions, and failure/precondition behavior unspecified, so an agent lacks enough to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description instead clarifies what the parameterless export returns, which is the only meaningful semantic context available.

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 ("Export") and a well-scoped resource ("the hash-linked lineage of every episode adjudicated in this session"), and previews the payload (verdict counts, integrity flag). It is distinguishable from the sibling verify_immune_lineage, though it doesn't explicitly frame the contrast (export a report vs. verify lineage).

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 "in this session" phrasing implies this is a post-adjudication reporting step, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must episodes be adjudicated first?), and no mention of alternatives such as verify_immune_lineage or describe_policy.

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