export_tuning_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions 'export', which implies a read operation, but does not state whether it modifies state, requires authentication, or any side effects. Lacks transparency on 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 sentence, making it very concise, but it lacks structure (no front-loading of key info) and is too minimal, omitting important details. It is not wasteful but underspecified.

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 4 parameters and existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'tuning decisions' are, when to use this tool versus similar ones, and how parameters affect output. The output schema mitigates but does not compensate for lack of description.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters except indirectly mentioning output formats. Parameters like 'limit', 'accepted_only', and 'ranked' are left entirely to the schema, providing no additional meaning.

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 tool exports persisted tuning decisions and specifies the output formats (markdown or JSON). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'export_tuning_session' and 'export_preview_report'.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., export_tuning_session), no prerequisites, and no hints on context or when not to use it. The description is silent on usage scenarios.

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