research_export

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the export includes a provenance footer, is scoped to the user's own session, and importantly warns that source titles and URLs are external content to be treated as data, not instructions. This adds security-relevant behavioral context not covered by the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each clause contributes value: format choices, use case, sibling references, scope, provenance, and a security warning. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With the output schema present and annotations already covering safety, the description completes the picture with usage context, markdown content details, scope, and the external-content warning. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the format parameter (markdown content includes research goal, steps, reasoning, confidence, gaps, source list) and clarifies that sessionId refers to a completed session. This goes beyond the schema without duplicating 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 opens with 'Export a completed sequential_search session as a shareable report,' giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning markdown/json formats and by distinguishing its role from format_bibliography and get_research_session.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to hand off or archive a research trail.' It also names alternatives and complementary tools: 'pair with format_bibliography... get_research_session to inspect a session before exporting.' The scope to your own session is also clarified.

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