export_network_report

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly declares 'Mutating operation: writes a local report file immediately, persisted in the export directory,' and explains rejection behavior when confirm is false. This informs the agent of side effects and side-effect gating. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded: it states action, formats, safety requirement, and alternative in the first paragraph. Some redundancy exists between the prose and the repeated Args section, but every sentence contributes necessary operational context, and the structure is scannable.

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?

Combined with full schema coverage and the explicit safety/alternative statements, nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing. The description addresses the mutating side effect, required confirmation, file extension rules, and the preferred alternative — all critical to correct selection and invocation.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, and the description's Arg section essentially repeats those descriptions. No additional semantics about types, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with a concrete verb and object: 'Export an HTML or CSV report rendered from the portable snapshot model.' It specifies output formats and clearly differentiates from export_portable_snapshot by mentioning the raw machine-readable alternative. Even among many sibling tools, its purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to prefer export_portable_snapshot when a raw machine-readable model is needed, which is a clear when-not-to-use. It also specifies the required confirm=true and format/extension constraints. This satisfies explicit guidance for selection.

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