ExportRuntimeEvidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say what file is written where, whether overwrite is required for existing output, or what happens when an artifact JSON is absent.

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 or repetition. It is tight, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 nine-parameter, destructive, artifact-producing tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine required inputs, artifact pairing rules, or the resulting output location from this text.

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?

Nine parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no format or meaning given in the description. The phrase 'static annotations' loosely gestures at include_static and the trace/artifact ids are never explained, leaving api_trace_id, native_trace_id, dump_artifacts_json, coverage_artifact_json, and comparison_recovery_json entirely undocumented.

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 (Export) and the resource it produces (static annotations plus hash+RVA runtime evidence), and names the target consumer (IDA). It is distinguishable from adjacent tools like ValidateDump or DumpModule, though the jargon 'hash+RVA' is not self-explanatory.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as ValidateDump, DumpModule, or CaptureStopContextStructured, and no prerequisites, ordering, or exclusion conditions are given. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name.

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