export_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a synchronous, read-only export operation. It adds useful details about format-specific constraints (e.g., image_size required for png/svg, exactly one object for data formats) and that it uses synchronous endpoints. These go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with a clear opening sentence, a bulleted list of formats with associated requirements, and 'Note' lines for parameter constraints. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is concise for the complexity it covers, and front-loads the core purpose before detailing formats.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It mentions 'export endpoints' and formats like 'package' as a .zip, but doesn't explicitly state the response type (e.g., binary content vs. download URL). It covers most operational details, making it highly usable, but this one omission prevents a perfect score.

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 schema covers all five parameters with descriptions, but the tool description significantly enriches meaning by explaining how each format affects parameter usage (e.g., options for PDF overrides, report_objects constraints per format, image_size format). This adds value beyond the schema's individual field descriptions, clarifying the combined semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Export a Visual Analytics report (or specific report objects) in any format the VA service exposes'. It specifies the verb (export), the resource (report), and the scope (whole report or specific objects), and lists all supported formats. It distinguishes itself from siblings like copy_report or get_report by focusing on export in various formats.

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?

The description provides detailed context on when to use each format (e.g., 'csv' requires exactly one object, 'png' requires image_size), and implies export for downloading data rather than on-screen viewing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like get_report or download_file for comparison, but the format-specific requirements serve as clear use-case guidance.

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