jobs_runs_export

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the specific return types (notebook content and dashboard definitions), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, permissions required, or whether the export includes all run data. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value.

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 efficiently states the purpose and return type. It is concise with no redundancy, though it could be slightly more precise about the output.

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?

The tool has low complexity (2 params, no enums, no nested objects) and includes a readOnlyHint annotation. The description explains what is returned, complementing the schema and annotations. Missing details like error handling or prerequisites are acceptable for a simple read operation, making the description largely complete.

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%, with both parameters (run_id, views_to_export) already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema covers parameters.

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 'Export and retrieve a run (returns notebook content and dashboard definitions)' clearly states the action (export/retrieve) and the resource (run), and specifies the returned content (notebook and dashboard definitions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobs_runs_get or jobs_runs_get_output, which return metadata or output logs rather than exported content.

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 implies usage for obtaining notebook and dashboard definitions from a run, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jobs_runs_get for metadata, jobs_runs_get_output for outputs). No 'when not to use' or prerequisite information is provided.

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