tsf_export_report

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

Annotations are minimal (all hints false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that HTML output is 'self-contained, with no external stylesheet or script' and that the report covers steps 'in the order they happened.' However, it does not clarify whether the tool writes a file to disk, returns the report content, or has other side effects. The output schema exists but is not described in the tool description, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured: a lead sentence defining the tool, then a list of contents, then usage order, then note advice, then alternative invocation. It is informative without being verbose. Minor inefficiency: 'a table of numbers without the reasoning is what makes a reviewer ask for the whole thing again' is slightly colorful but still earns its place. Could be tighter, but overall effective.

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 has 4 optional parameters and an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description covers its purpose, contents, usage order, and parameter trade-offs. It does not explain what happens if both handle and manifest_path are provided (mutual exclusion handled by schema? not specified). It also assumes the agent knows tsf_export_run was called, which is implied by 'at the end of an analysis.' Overall adequately complete for an AI agent to use 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?

The input schema has detailed descriptions for all parameters (note, format, handle, manifest_path), so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the semantic purpose of note ('headlines it as the rationale') and the trade-off between handle and manifest_path ('re-renders an older run -- it needs nothing but the manifest file'). This adds actionable context for parameter selection.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Render every step of the analysis as a report') and enumerates the exact contents (input hash, features, cross-validation, forecasts, anomalies, pinned environment). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like tsf_export_run (which exports run data) and tsf_forecast (which only forecasts). The purpose is unambiguous and comprehensive.

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 states ordering: 'Call it after tsf_export_run at the end of an analysis.' Provides clear alternatives: 'Report from manifest_path instead of handle to re-render an older run.' Also advises on best practice for the note parameter: 'a table of numbers without the reasoning is what makes a reviewer ask for the whole thing again.' This gives the agent concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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