Export case report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'write the case to disk' is fully consistent with a non-read-only, non-destructive, repeatable operation. It adds genuine value beyond the annotations by naming the exact file outputs and stating that file paths are returned. It does not say where on disk files land or whether existing files are overwritten, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output file, then the diagram artifacts and return value. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical enumeration is slightly heavy but earns its place by specifying artifact types.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by stating it returns file paths, and it describes the generated contents in enough detail for an agent to know what it gets. Only the destination directory and overwrite behavior are left unspecified.

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 100%, so both parameters (case, artifactId) are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond them. The 'per saved trace or cluster' phrasing loosely relates to the artifact-scoping behavior but does not explicitly explain the artifactId filter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (write/export), resource (the case), and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced (report.md with labels, notes, tables, Mermaid diagrams, plus per-trace/cluster SVG fund-flow diagrams). An agent can immediately distinguish this from case_read and case_update siblings.

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 phrase 'ready to drop into a report' hints at the reporting use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus case_read or case_update, nor any stated prerequisite that the case must already contain saved traces/clusters for the SVG output to be produced.

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