evidence_export_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool exports a report and writes it to a local file, which is the key side effect. It does not mention overwrite behavior or permissions, but the core side effect and output destination are transparent.

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 one focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then specifies formats and scope, making it easy to scan and process.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, a fully described schema, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the purpose, scope, format, and output destination. It does not enumerate parameter rules, but the schema covers those; the only minor gap is lack of explicit cross-reference to evidence_get_reports for report_name.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds some high-level meaning by mapping 'record' vs 'whole evidence listing' to the id/kod parameters, but it does not enrich individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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') and identifies the resource ('printable report') along with supported formats (PDF/XLSX). It also clearly differentiates the two main invocation modes: a single record or the whole evidence listing. This lets an agent understand exactly what the tool produces without inspecting the 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when a printable report file is needed for a record or the full listing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, such as evidence_get_reports, or state when not to use this tool. The usage context is clear but exclusions and sibling differentiation are left implicit.

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