export_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON array of report rows) and clarifies how to find the report_id, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe what happens for invalid IDs or permissions. This is partial disclosure but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 extremely concise and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and act on.

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's simplicity (one parameter, clear purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the core function and the key parameter. The only gap is lack of explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, which is minor for such a straightforward tool.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type, with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining that report_id is the numeric ID visible in the REDCap URL, adding semantic meaning and a concrete way to obtain it. For a single parameter, this is thorough.

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 specific action ('Export a saved REDCap report') and identifies the resource by ID. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like export_records or export_file by targeting a saved report rather than raw data or files.

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 implies usage when you have a saved report ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling export tools or exclusions, leaving the selection context partially unspecified.

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