edgegate_export_run_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: saves report to disk, returns absolute file path and a 30-line preview, and optionally includes a diff section controlled by include_diff. It does not mention overwrite behavior or required permissions, but given the export nature and output_path schema description, the main behavioral traits are well covered.

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, tight and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action and return values; the second covers the optional diff. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers return values (file path and preview) and the optional diff. It leaves some gaps such as not explicitly requiring workspace_id (though the schema marks it required) and not mentioning file overwrite behavior, but overall it provides sufficient context for invoking the tool correctly.

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 50%, with output_path and include_diff already described in the schema. run_id and workspace_id lack descriptions, and the tool description does not add meaning for these required parameters beyond their names and format. It does reinforce include_diff with a hint, but overall adds limited value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Download a human-readable markdown report... and save it to disk', clearly stating the tool's primary function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edgegate_get_report (which retrieves report content) and edgegate_export_compliance_report (which targets a different report type) by emphasizing file output and the returned file path.

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 provides clear context: it is used when a run report needs to be downloaded as a markdown file saved to disk, with an optional baseline diff. It implies when to use this tool relative to siblings that likely return content rather than write files. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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