export_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It only states 'export', which implies a file write, but does not mention side effects like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, or creates directories. There is also no mention of return values or error 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, focused sentence that immediately says what the tool does. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words, making it highly concise and structured effectively.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks behavioral context (side effects, permissions) and does not differentiate from sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when to use it.

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%, with both parameters (reportId and outputPath) having descriptive meanings. The description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'export' with a clear resource ('vulnerability report') and format ('as markdown file'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vulnerability_report, get_report_preview, and get_report_template.

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 implies usage when a user wants to save a report to a file. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_report_preview or get_report_template, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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