export_report_data

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 states the tool exports data as JSON, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (e.g., non-destructive), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or details the output structure (e.g., pagination, error handling). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence: 'Export raw table data as structured JSON for use in external reports.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output specifics. With no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, leaving gaps. It's complete enough for a simple export tool but could benefit from more context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters (table, query, fields, limit) are documented in the input schema with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Export raw table data as structured JSON for use in external reports.' It specifies the verb ('Export'), resource ('raw table data'), and output format ('structured JSON'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'export_properties' or 'export_update_set' in the provided list, which might handle different types of exports.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'for use in external reports,' which gives a general context but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or when other export-related tools might be more appropriate. Without such guidance, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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