export_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output is 'self-contained HTML' and that a file is written, but says nothing about overwrite behavior of an existing path, permissions, or idempotency of repeated exports – significant gaps for a file-writing tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the artifact first, with the report contents enumerated compactly. It is somewhat run-on at the end but no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description adequately conveys the report's contents and format. However, for a write tool with no annotations it omits when to invoke it and how it interacts with existing files, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0 required parameters, so the schema already documents the path default and language default fully. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Write') and resource ('a self-contained HTML report') and enumerates what the report aggregates (claims, verdicts, verified quotes with page, rewrites, bibliography problems). This distinguishes it from the check-specific siblings like verify_quote or check_bibliography, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. checks must have been run first), and no alternatives named. The aggregating role is only implied by the surrounding sibling set.

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