sigma_export_and_download

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it polls until ready, returns base64 content, and has a max_bytes limit with a specific fallback behavior. This goes beyond the basic annotation profile without contradicting it.

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 compact and information-dense. Each sentence adds meaningful detail—purpose, polling, format/layout constraints, parameter overrides, max_bytes behavior, and response encoding—with no filler or redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return structures. It covers the core behavioral context: async polling, format/layout restrictions, parameter overrides, and size limits. It does not mention timeout behavior explicitly, but the polling statement implies it, so the description is largely complete for this complexity.

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 0% description coverage, but the tool description compensates well by explaining format, layout, parameters overrides, and max_bytes. It omits explicit descriptions for element_id, workbook_id, and timeout_seconds, but these are reasonably inferable from the tool name and the 'polls until ready' hint.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Export a workbook/element and download the result'. It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling export tools by including 'download' and the polling behavior. The format options further clarify its exact scope.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to export and download with polling, plus parameter constraints. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., sigma_export_workbook, sigma_export_report) or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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