export_findings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes the 1–100 count limit, that records must already exist, and that a new local file is created. It does not disclose file naming, default export directory, behavior for invalid/missing IDs, or return values.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core behavior and output format. Every element earns its place with no wasted phrasing.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and output format. It omits minor operational details like destination path and return behavior, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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%, but the description adds meaning to both parameters: record_ids are evidence record IDs, and format maps to JSON or Markdown. It even adds the 1–100 count constraint, which the schema does not express.

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 (export), a specific resource (existing evidence record IDs), a range (1–100), and the output types (local JSON or Markdown file). It clearly differentiates from the sibling search/lookup tools, which are investigation-oriented rather than export-oriented.

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 description implies the tool is for exporting evidence records to local files, while siblings are search/lookup tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives.

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