export_scan_markdown

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

The description declares 'Read-only' matching readOnlyHint=true and explains token requirement for locked reports. This adds context beyond the annotations, such as the need for full access.

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?

Three concise sentences: first defines main action, second adds constraints, third gives usage context. No waste, well-structured.

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?

Covers key aspects: export format, templates, token requirement, and usage scenarios. No output schema needed; description adequately informs invocation. Could mention error if scan incomplete, but implied by 'completed scan'.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining each template's purpose (cursor=agent fix prompt, github=issue body, executive=summary) and token for locked reports.

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 completed scan as Markdown with three specific templates (cursor, github, executive). It distinguishes from siblings like unlock_report (which provides token) and get_scan (raw data).

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?

Usage is explicitly stated: 'Use to hand results into an IDE/coding agent or a ticket.' It also mentions the requirement of a token for locked reports. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or contrast with alternatives.

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