Export ToolQuest Run Report

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by disclosing the return behavior ('Returns content without writing a file') and the redaction of the event timeline, which informs the agent about side-effect-free and privacy-conscious execution.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists the report contents and closes with the key non-writing behavior. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the report contains, the output format, the redaction behavior, and the fact that no file is written, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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%; the runId parameter is fully described as an 'Opaque run ID returned by start_run.' The description itself does not add extra parameter details, but because the schema already carries the full parameter meaning, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Generate'), a concrete deliverable ('Markdown benchmark report'), and the exact contents (run metadata, score, replay verification, redacted event timeline). It also distinguishes itself from file-writing by stating it 'Returns content without writing a file,' which separates it from any sibling that might persist output.

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 implied use case is clear: call this tool when you need a Markdown benchmark report, and the 'without writing a file' note clarifies output handling. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over siblings like get_run or replay_run, nor any stated exclusions or alternatives.

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