export_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it writes five named files, explicitly avoids fetching/reconstructing external source content, and states that historical exports do not touch runs/latest unless set_latest=true. It omits overwrite behavior, destination path, and auth/rate considerations, so it is strong but not complete.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and artifact list, followed by the non-fetching constraint and the set_latest caveat. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description already names the artifacts produced. The main remaining gap is where the export is written and whether existing exports are overwritten, which is relevant for a file-writing tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives clear semantics for set_latest (mutates latest only when explicitly true) and implies run_id scoping via 'run-scoped', though run_id's format/expected value is left undocumented.

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 (export) and resource (deterministic, run-scoped evidence pack from persisted engine data), then enumerates exactly which artifacts are produced. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like get_evidence or get_research_state without opening 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?

Implies when the tool is relevant (exporting a run's evidence pack) and clarifies the set_latest condition, but names no alternative tools and gives no explicit when-not guidance, so routing relative to siblings is left to inference.

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