reports_export_baseline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: approval must be genuine and pre-existing, output is confined to configured roots, and the return includes an artifact hash meant to be pinned in reviewed CI — implying integrity/auth requirements not captured by annotations.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the guardrail second. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves gaps rather than trimming 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the description covers the key approval/integrity concerns. But with 0% param coverage on a 4-required-param mutation tool and no differentiation from siblings, it is only partially complete for the task.

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% with 4 required params, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inside configured roots' hints that output_path is constrained and 'Do not invent approval' loosely gestures at approved_by/approval_reference, but no format, origin, or expected value for report_id or the approval fields is given, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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) and resource (an explicitly approved baseline), with an added scoping condition (inside configured roots). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the many reports_* siblings (reports_get, reports_list, reports_compare), so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

Gives actionable constraint guidance ('Do not invent approval', 'pin the returned artifact hash in reviewed CI configuration'), which implies the intended workflow. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not or naming of alternative tools among the many reports_* siblings.

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