resources.export_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It transparently reveals return shapes ({url} vs {bytes_base64}), the authentication prerequisite, packaging differences (full CLI vs standalone kontexta-mcp), and the fallback behavior. This goes well beyond the structured schema fields.

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 two sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every clause earns its place: main verb/resource, default return, authentication, alternative mode, availability caveat, and fallback. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete for operational use: it specifies how to get each return type, the auth requirement, and packaging constraints. An agent knows what to expect and how to adapt its call. No critical information is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the default output mode, the condition under which inline_bytes=true actually works, and the fallback behavior. This enriches understanding of the inline_bytes and id parameters without duplicating schema text.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Export') with a specific resource ('existing HTML report') and the output formats (PDF or PNG). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling resources.* tools (add_report, list_reports, delete_report) by describing the operation rather than management actions.

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?

While it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, it provides clear context: it states the default behavior, the authentication requirement, and when inline_bytes is available (full kontexta CLI) vs when it falls back. This is sufficient contextual guidance for selecting and invoking the tool, though a direct contrast with sibling tools would be stronger.

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