export_evidence_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Produces' leaves ambiguous whether the report is returned inline or written to disk, whether the operation has side effects, and what happens with the workspacePath hint. Only the format enum is conveyed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the action and resource. It is efficient, though it trades away the depth that a mutation-free-but-ambiguous tool might warrant.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is functional but thin. It never clarifies the return behavior (inline content vs. file write) or that the bundle must pre-exist, which are the main things an agent needs beyond the well-documented schema.

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 100%, so bundleId, format, and workspacePath are all documented in the schema, making the baseline 3. The description's mention of Markdown/JSON largely restates the enum parameter and adds nothing about bundleId or the workspacePath hint.

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 uses a specific verb ('Produces') and resource ('evidence report') and enumerates the two formats it emits. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like create_evidence_bundle or verify_evidence_bundle, so the agent must infer that export happens on an existing bundle rather than creating one.

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?

It gives usage context ('suitable for pull requests, issues, or handoffs'), which implies why you'd choose this tool. However, it names no alternative and states no prerequisites (e.g., that a bundle must already exist via create_evidence_bundle), so the when-not guidance is missing.

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