Export Report

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds further useful behavioral context: it notes synchronous export endpoints, explains what each format produces (e.g., package bundles source files and query results), and documents pass-through options for PDF rendering. This goes 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into a compact, scannable format list. Every line conveys necessary operational detail, and the bullet structure makes format-specific rules easy to parse without unnecessary prose.

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 could more explicitly state what the caller receives back (e.g., binary file content, download URL, or saved artifact). However, it covers the format-specific input constraints thoroughly and describes the exported artifacts well enough that an agent can invoke the tool correctly for most cases.

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 already describes all parameters at 100% coverage, and the description substantially enriches that meaning by tying each export_format value to the exact parameter requirements: package/pdf accept multiple objects, png/svg require image_size, csv/tsv/xlsx require exactly one object, and summary accepts none. This is high-value semantic guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific action ('Export a Visual Analytics report') and resource ('report or specific report objects'), and enumerates the supported formats. It clearly differentiates this from siblings like list_reports and get_report, which manage or inspect reports rather than export their content.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool for exporting report content in various formats, and even specifies per-format constraints such as image_size for png/svg and exactly one object for data formats. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the export-focused purpose is unambiguous relative to the listed siblings.

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