export_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. While 'export' suggests non-destructive behavior, this is not explicitly stated, and there is no mention of output format or behavior beyond mode selection.

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 two sentences: one sentence defining the tool's unified nature, and one sentence listing all modes. No redundant information; every word contributes to clarity.

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?

Despite 7 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is too minimal. It does not explain parameter dependencies (e.g., 'scope' required for executive_summary), error handling, or return format. The schema descriptions partially compensate, but overall completeness is insufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of each mode (e.g., 'export as JSON', 'generate executive summary'), which goes beyond the schema's enum listing.

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 it is a 'Unified report export tool' and lists four specific modes (json, markdown, executive_summary, csv) with their output types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (all wireless security analyzers) and provides a specific verb-resource combination.

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 exporting reports in various formats but does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, given the sibling tools are all wireless-focused, this is the only export tool, minimizing confusion.

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