export_crawl_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what the report contains and that output can be Markdown or JSON, and 'export' implies a read-only generation action. It does not disclose whether it requires an existing saved crawl session, what happens when none exists, or any side effects, though the schema partially covers the default session behavior.

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 that leads with the action and object, then enumerates the report sections and output formats. Every phrase adds useful disambiguation, and there is no filler or duplication.

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 two-optional-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description plus parameter schema cover the essentials: report scope, sections, and output formats. The main gap is the implicit prerequisite of a completed crawl/analysis session, but that is reasonably inferable from the sessionId parameter and sibling tools.

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 the baseline applies: the schema already documents 'format' (enum with markdown/json) and 'sessionId' (defaults to most recent session). The description adds nothing substantial beyond repeating the output formats, so it neither needs nor receives extra credit.

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 opens with the concrete verb 'Xuất' (export) and a specific resource: a complete aggregated report containing overview, on-page SEO errors, site structure tree, and topic classification proportions. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling analysis tools, which generate individual pieces rather than the consolidated export.

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 word 'tổng hợp hoàn chỉnh' (complete aggregate) implies this is the final consolidated export rather than one of the individual analysis steps, and the sessionId parameter implies a prior crawl. However, the description never explicitly states when to use it, that a crawl/analysis session must already exist, or how it relates to the sibling tools.

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