zap_scan_history_release_evidence

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

The description discloses what the export contains ('summary counts, target coverage, warnings') and that ledger entries are bounded, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not clarify whether the export is returned directly, written to a file, or requires permissions, and does not explain side effects or response format.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the purpose and key output characteristics with no wasted words. Every element contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

For a tool with only three optional, well-described parameters, the description is adequate but not rich. It omits the export's return shape or delivery mechanismché, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill that gap, leaving an agent uncertain about what invoking the tool actually yields.

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. The tool description adds little beyond 'target coverage', which loosely maps to the target parameter, but does not expand on limit, target, or releaseName semantics.

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') and a specific resource ('release or pilot handoff evidence bundle') with distinctive contents (summary counts, target coverage, warnings, bounded ledger entries). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like zap_scan_history_customer_handoff or zap_scan_history_export, but the resource qualifier makes the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 choose this tool over similar siblings such as zap_scan_history_export, zap_scan_history_customer_handoff, or zap_scan_history_get. No context, conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving selection to inference.

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