export_sarif

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

No annotations are provided (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention whether this operation is read-only or destructive, whether it requires prior scans, or how the export handles large code inputs. Given the lack of annotations and no behavioral details, a score of 2 is warranted.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists relevant integrations. Every word earns its place without redundancy. It is concise and easily scannable.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the output format and use cases but does not mention what happens on failure, rate limits, or whether the tool validates engines against available ones. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not thorough coverage.

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%, so all four parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no further parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not augment it.

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 specific verb 'Export' and resource 'scan findings as SARIF 2.1.0', clearly stating the output format and use cases (GitHub Code Scanning, VS Code, CI integration). It distinguishes from sibling tools (like scan_file, scan_code) which focus on scanning rather than exporting results in a standardized format.

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 implies usage for exporting findings to SARIF format, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_findings (which might return findings in a different format) or scan_* tools. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned. A score of 3 is appropriate because the context is clear but lacks actionable guidance.

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