Storm Export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Write' is consistent with the write annotation. However, it adds almost no behavioral context beyond that: it doesn't say whether 'out' is a path that may overwrite existing files, what the report covers, or how limit/include_code affect output.

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 is appropriately sized. It is arguably too terse given the five undocumented parameters, but as pure conciseness it is clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but that does not offset the gaps. A mutating, five-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no usage guidance leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly.

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 5 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden but explains none of them. 'out', 'build', 'limit', and 'include_code' are entirely opaque, and even the required 'topic' is not defined in terms of format or scope.

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?

States a specific verb (write/export) and resource (compact markdown report from indexed facts), which is clear enough for an agent to understand the action. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings like storm_show or storm_explain, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative among the many storm_* siblings. An agent must guess when export is preferable to storm_show or storm_explain.

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