export_pr_sarif_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output format (SARIF v2.1.0) and target consumers, but leaves key behavior unstated: whether the tool performs the audit itself or only formats pre-computed results, whether it writes a file or returns a string, and whether any permissions or side effects apply.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the conversion and immediately names the output standard and integrations; no wasted wording. Mildly loose phrasing ('git diff audit results') is the only blemish.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what the output is but not how it is delivered (returned JSON vs. written artifact) or how the audit step relates to the conversion, leaving an agent to infer the return behavior.

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 100%, so both parameters (diff, toolName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that baseline and does not explain the optional toolName driver field or expected diff format.

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 ('Converts') and resource (git diff audit results) plus a concrete output standard (OASIS SARIF v2.1.0). Slight imprecision: the input schema says the parameter is a raw unified diff, not 'audit results', and no sibling (scan_diff_for_secrets, review_git_diff, generate_github_pr_suggestions) is named for differentiation.

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?

Usage context is only implied through the destination list (GitHub Advanced Security, GitLab Code Quality, CI/CD dashboards), which suggests 'use when you need SARIF output'. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. the three sibling tools and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.

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