export_sarif

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the return format (JSON string) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or any rate limits. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but lacks details beyond the basic action.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, output format, and context. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a tool with a single input parameter and a simple output (JSON string), the description covers purpose, input, and output. No output schema exists, but the return format is specified. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'path' is described in the schema as 'Directory to scan'). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter.

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 verb 'scan and export', the resource 'directory', and the output format 'SARIF v2.1.0'. It also specifies the context (CI/CD integration for GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_directory that likely do not produce SARIF format.

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 indicates the tool is intended for CI/CD integration, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it. For a simple tool, this is clear enough but could be more explicit.

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