export_preview_report

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, whether it creates files, requires permissions, or is read-only. The word 'export' implies generating a file, but details are missing.

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?

Single sentence is too minimal given the tool's complexity. While not verbose, it lacks necessary detail; front-loading is absent as the entire description is one line. The length is not justified by the content provided.

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?

Output schema exists but description does not explain return format or how results are delivered. No context on when to use among 30+ sibling tools, nor what constitutes a valid baseline/candidate run ID.

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 7 parameters with 0% coverage in description. The description does not mention any parameters, defaults, or how they affect the output (e.g., 'baseline_run_id' and 'candidate_run_ids' are required but not described).

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 (export), the resource (visual preview report), and specific contents (ranking, contact sheets, decisions). However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like 'export_pipeline' or 'export_tuning_report' which have similar names and purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. For example, when to export a preview report vs. a tuning report or pipeline export is not mentioned. Also lacks prerequisites or context for usage.

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