infomaniak_export_drive_activity_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it downloads generated output, which is consistent with these hints but does not disclose behavior such as pagination, output format, or whether the report must be ready. This adds some context beyond annotations but lacks depth.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 nested query object and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship to sibling report tools, what the generated output format is, or how query parameters apply to the download. This leaves important context to the agent's inference, which is risky for correct 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 coverage is only 33% (only drive_id has a description). The description does not mention report_id or the query object, nor explain how pagination/filter options like order_by and per_page affect the download. The agent must infer parameter meaning from names and enums, which is insufficient for low schema coverage.

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 'Download' and identifies the resource as 'generated output for a kDrive activity report,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_drive_activity_report (likely metadata retrieval) and list_drive_activity_reports. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify what 'generated output' contains, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus get_drive_activity_report or create_drive_activity_report. The description only states the action without explaining prerequisites (e.g., report must already be generated) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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