zap_scan_history_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the result is a bounded JSON snapshot, but it does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether limits or pagination apply beyond 'server configuration', what side effects may occur, or what the response shape looks like. This is insufficient for a no-annotations tool.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, the output format, and the purpose. There is no fluff, repetition, or structural clutter.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and several close sibling tools, yet the description only gives a high-level snapshot intent. It does not describe the JSON shape, the default scope of the snapshot, how filters combine, or why it is distinct from the handoff/release-evidence siblings. Given that absence, an agent still has meaningful gaps to fill to call it confidently.

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 each parameter already has a meaningful description including evidenceType's allowed values. The tool-level description, however, does not add param-specific semantics or clarify how 'bounded' interacts with the optional limit/status/target/evidenceType filters. Baseline 3 is 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 states a concrete action ('Export') and resource ('bounded scan history ledger snapshot') with an output format and purpose ('as JSON for release evidence or handoff'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the very close siblings zap_scan_history_release_evidence and zap_scan_history_customer_handoff, both of which coincide in purpose.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the close siblings, such as zap_scan_history_release_evidence, zap_scan_history_customer_handoff, or zap_scan_history_list. The phrase 'for release evidence or handoff' gestures at context but gives no selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when each alternative is appropriate.

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