validation_report_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes the output (HTML report and JSON data), the directory structure (dependent on run-id), and the report sections. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting files) or access requirements. The level of detail is sufficient for a tool with no parameters.

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 in Chinese that front-loads the core action. It includes all essential details (output format, structure, directory logic) without extraneous information. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what it does, the resulting output structure, and where files are saved. It covers all necessary information for a simple export tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds value by explaining the output behavior (directory fallback, report structure) beyond the empty 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 clearly states the tool's primary purpose: exporting the latest validation result as a static HTML report with a specific six-section structure. It uses a strong verb 'export' and specifies the output resource (validation results). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validation_report', the description is specific enough to convey its function.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it should be used after a validation run, but does not mention when to avoid it or specify any prerequisites or exclusions. No comparative context with sibling tools is given.

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