export_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add contextual behavior. It states that the report content is returned as a string and that release reports depend on releaseId, which is useful and goes beyond the schema. It does not explain edge-case behavior like empty report results, but this is not critical given the 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: it front-loads the main purpose, lists supported types and formats, states the return type, and ends with the most important conditional note. 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?

Given the tool has five parameters, schema annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to call the tool correctly and understand the result. It could further position this tool against sibling read/report tools, but that gap is minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly connecting reportType 'release' to the releaseId argument and directing the agent to fetch it from list_releases. This cross-parameter relationship is helpful beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 states a clear action (generate a formatted report), a clear resource (project), and explicitly lists report types and formats. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like get_launches_trends or get_execution, but its purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains that it covers summary, failures, trends, and release reports and adds a concrete conditional note: release reports require releaseId, which can be obtained from list_releases. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or when a simpler sibling is preferable, but the included guidance is actionable and clear.

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