chaprola_export_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that output is saved as a persistent .R file in S3, but it omits important behavioral details such as authorization requirements, side effects, overwrite behavior, or what the function returns. For a write-like operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the main action and output, though the phrasing 'persistent .R file' is slightly unusual. It earns a high but not perfect score due to the lack of any supplementary structure.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many potentially overlapping siblings, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain prerequisites, result format, file naming, or how this differs from related tools, leaving the agent with incomplete operational context.

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 provides descriptions for all 7 parameters, including the enum for format and required fields, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action (run a .PR program) and the outcome (save output as a persistent .R file in S3), giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like chaprola_export, chaprola_report, or chaprola_run, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor does it list any exclusions or prerequisites. It only implies usage when one wants to run a .PR program and persist output to S3, which is not enough context for correct tool selection.

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