report_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'write' implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting files), required permissions, or any destructive potential. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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 sentence that lists many report components, which is somewhat dense. It could be more concise by omitting internal details, but it is not overly verbose. Scores in the middle range.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description does not adequately inform the agent. It fails to explain the report's structure, output location (besides 'run dir'), or any return value, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 tool description does not explain either parameter. The agent must infer that 'runId' identifies a run and 'format' specifies output format, but no permissible values or semantics are provided. This is a critical gap.

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 writes a reproducible markdown report containing specific components (baseline lock, frozen benchmark, score matrix, etc.) to a run directory. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'report_saturation'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tools might be preferable for different reporting needs.

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