export_task_evidence_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses outputs (evidence.json, EVIDENCE.md) and important exclusions (stdout, stderr, logs, diff, sensitive files), giving the agent a clear picture of what the tool does not include. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, which would enhance transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, with clear specification of outputs and exclusions. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what it does and what it produces. It could briefly mention it's a read-only operation, but overall covers the key aspects.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with high coverage (100%). The description reinforces that lineage_id comes from run_task_loop and implies max_items bounds the pack, but adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema.

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 tool exports a bounded evidence pack for a run_task_loop lineage, specifies the output files (evidence.json, EVIDENCE.md), and lists exclusions (stdout, stderr, logs, diff, sensitive files). The verb 'export' and resource 'evidence pack' are specific, and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task_log_tail.

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 after run_task_loop by referencing the lineage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to use alternatives like get_task_lineage or get_task_log_tail. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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