Start Rapid7 Export

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: non-blocking background processing, typical 3-5 minute completion, automatic reuse of a same-day export ID, and automatic splitting of >31-day remediation exports. These are exactly the kind of runtime behaviors an agent needs to know and cannot infer from the schema or 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the essential non-blocking behavior, followed by downstream tool usage and edge-case behavior. It is slightly repetitive ('non-blocking' appears twice; returning the export ID is stated more than once), but every block of information serves a distinct purpose.

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 tool with three optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations available, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool returns, what happens in the background, how long it typically takes, how to check/download the result, and how edge cases like duplicates and long date ranges are handled.

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 input schema already covers parameter types, defaults, and enum values at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying that date parameters are remediation-focused and by explaining the 31-day chunking behavior, which directly affects how start_date and end_date should be provided.

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 'Start a new Rapid7 export job (non-blocking)', giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly separates this tool from siblings like check_rapid7_export_status, download_rapid7_export, and list_rapid7_exports by focusing on job creation and immediate ID return.

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 gives a clear workflow: call this first, then check_rapid7_export_status, then download_rapid7_export. It also explains the existing-export deduplication behavior, which helps the agent decide whether a new call is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_rapid7_exports for checking existing exports, so it falls just short of a 5.

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