Export exposures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—no details about return format, whether the export is synchronous, any authentication requirements, or what 'export' actually produces (e.g., a file or data payload). The description does not go beyond the basic operation.

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 under-specified sentence, providing minimal information. While it is not verbose, it is not appropriately sized for a tool with a parameter that requires explanation. The lack of structure or detail makes it under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety, the description should provide more context about the export behavior and output. The description doesn't clarify what the export returns, how the query works, or any format details. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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 has a 'query' object parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. Since there are no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description carries the full burden and completely fails to compensate. The agent has no idea what 'query' should contain or how to structure it.

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 action ('Export') and the resource ('exposures') from the system 'Exposure Analytics'. It distinguishes itself from sibling export tools (e.g., cymulate_ea_cves_export) by naming the specific resource, but does not differentiate from the closely related cymulate_ea_exposures_get or clarify the difference between 'export' and 'get'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_ea_exposures_get or other export tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context about choosing this tool. It only states the action without any usage direction.

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