export_case

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses the default write location (the case's exports/ folder), the extension constraint on path, and the safety behavior that an existing file is only replaced when overwrite=true. It does not say whether the case must be open first or what the call returns, leaving a modest gap for a filesystem-writing operation.

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?

Three compact sentences plus a call example, front-loaded with the purpose and format choice, then the path rule, then the overwrite safeguard. Every sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact; nothing is restated from the schema.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers purpose, format selection, default location, naming constraint, and overwrite safety. The remaining gap is that with no output schema, it never says what the call returns (e.g., the written file path) or whether multiple exports overwrite by naming convention.

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 coverage is 0% (only titles and defaults), so the description must supply semantics and largely does: all three parameters get meaning beyond the schema, including the two valid format values that are not encoded as an enum, the constraint that path must end in .md or .csv, and the default directory when path is omitted. Only overwrite's boolean default is left to the schema.

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 and resource ('Export the case') and immediately enumerates the two output forms it can produce ('markdown' report or 'timesketch_csv'). No sibling tool in the list exports case data, so the scope boundary is unambiguous without naming a competitor.

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?

Explains what each format is for (human-readable Markdown vs. Timesketch-importable CSV), which is enough for an agent to choose between them, and gives the default ('markdown' via the example). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites (e.g., must the case be open?), which is why it is not a 5.

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