Export a design thinking session report as a PPTX deck and self-contained HTML, returning the file paths for distribution.
Export the run report (PPTX deck + self-contained HTML) and return the paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the operation (export), the exact artifacts produced (PPTX and HTML), and the return value (paths), but it does not disclose whether the export overwrites files, where paths point, whether a run must be complete, or any permission requirements.
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 sentence conveys the action, the output formats, and the returned data with no filler. The essential information is front-loaded.
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?
For a one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and return, but it omits the parameter meaning and any usage context. It is adequate for a minimal invocation yet leaves an agent guessing about prerequisites and what 'name' should contain.
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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter, `name`, has no description in the schema. The description references a 'run report' but never explicitly states whether `name` is the run's name, a report name, or an output filename, leaving the parameter ambiguous.
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 names a concrete action and resource ('Export the run report') and specifies the two output formats (PPTX deck + self-contained HTML). It does not explicitly contrast with the 13 sibling tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given about when to call export_report versus siblings such as run_session, get_status, cost_report, or generate_handoff. The agent must infer that a run report exists before exporting; there are no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.