export_debug_report

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

Annotations declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: that it produces one self-contained artifact tied to the run-id and can optionally embed a snapshot and a coredump. It omits any note on disk/permission requirements or cost of capturing a coredump.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and artifact, then qualifies the optional components. Every phrase earns its place with no 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 write tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is produced and where it is anchored (run-id). It could say more about what the report enables next or any preconditions, but nothing critical for calling it is missing.

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 including the 'requires a halted target' constraint on include_snapshot. The description confirms the optional snapshot/coredump nature but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Writes') and resource ('a single self-contained JSON report') and enumerates the composite content (journal + metrics + profile, optionally snapshot and coredump), which distinguishes it from siblings like snapshot, coredump, and session_diagnostics. It does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clause 'so a bug session is fully reproducible and shareable from one artifact' implies the use case (packaging a bug session for sharing), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative such as snapshot or coredump for narrower needs.

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