resources_export_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the auth requirement for the URL path, the CLI-vs-standalone availability constraint on inline_bytes, and the graceful fallback with a note. It omits any mention of rate limits or permissions beyond 'authenticated dashboard request', so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and output formats, then the default return, then the opt-in variant. Three dense sentences with little waste, though the nested clauses about CLI availability make it slightly heavier than necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description properly names both return shapes ({ url } and { bytes_base64 }) and their conditions. Auth, availability, and fallback behavior are all covered; only granular operational details (limits, error modes) are absent.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all three parameters, including the inline_bytes CLI caveat and the pdf/png enum. The description largely restates this, adding only the auth context for the URL return, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Export an existing HTML report as PDF or PNG') and is immediately distinguishable from siblings like resources_add_report, resources_list_reports, and resources_delete_report. No ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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?

Explains the default path (web-served { url }) and the condition that selects the alternative (set inline_bytes=true), including when that alternative is unavailable and what happens instead. It does not explicitly compare to sibling report tools, but the default-vs-opt-in routing is clear.

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