export_bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds value by detailing the bundle contents (diagnose summary, timeline, screenshots, HAR, repro steps), which goes beyond the annotation's binary signal.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and contents, the second provides usage alternatives. Every word 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value as 'one JSON object' and lists its components. This is sufficient for a tool with clear annotations and parameters. Could mention potential size or permissions, but not necessary.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('app' and 'windowMs'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb 'Export' and resource 'shareable bug-report bundle', listing its contents explicitly. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming alternatives (export_har, diagnose).

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?

Clearly states what the tool does and provides explicit guidance for when to use alternatives: 'For just the network log use export_har; for a quick triage use diagnose.' This helps the agent choose correctly.

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