export_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that results are exported to a file; it does not mention file creation/overwrite behavior, supported formats, side effects, or whether success is indicated in any particular way. The statement is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 a single short sentence with no filler words and front-loads the core action. It is structurally efficient, though its brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter context.

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 three parameters including a free-form settings object and zero schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but an agent still cannot determine required export_type values, settings keys, or file format behavior.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'export_type' or 'settings'. 'plot/data' loosely hints at what might be exported and 'to a file' clarifies 'filename', but an agent still cannot infer valid export_type values or the structure of the settings object.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export'), a clear object ('results (plot/data)'), and a destination ('to a file'), so an agent can tell this is the file-output tool among model-building and simulation siblings. It loses one point because it does not elaborate on what 'plot/data' encompasses or how it differs from any non-export alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives to prefer. An agent can infer that exporting happens when a file is needed, but the description provides no explicit context or exclusions.

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