export_results

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description usefully adds the write target (the case's exports folder) and the return value (file path), which the annotations cannot convey. It does not state whether a repeated export overwrites a prior file, a meaningful gap given idempotentHint=false, which keeps this below 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then the format options densest-first, ending with the return value. No filler or restated metadata.

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 writing tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, destination, format semantics, and return value, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining holes are the unspecified language parameter behavior and file-overwrite semantics.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It does a good job explaining what each format enum value produces (VTU with tet10 and all nodal fields, CSV with nodal fields or modal frequencies, HTML report with images and verification gates), but says nothing about the case_id parameter or the language parameter (ja/en/zh, default ja), which most likely only affects the report output — a silent default an agent could get wrong.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and destination ('Export the latest results to the case's exports folder') and then enumerates the three output artifacts, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like export_case and get_results. The scope is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'latest results' implies this belongs after a simulation run, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to alternatives such as export_case (full case archive) or get_results (read values without writing). The agent must infer the boundary from name alone.

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