export_report

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: runs counts launches and does not add up correctly, passRate counts flaky as a pass, passRate is floored rather than rounded, and release reports ignore days. These are non-obvious behavioral details that the schema and annotations do not provide. There is no contradiction with the readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive 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 core purpose is front-loaded, and almost every detail contributes important behavioral context. It is dense and long, but not padded. A little restructuring with clearer separation between report-type notes would improve scannability, so it is strong but not a perfect 5.

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 report tool with no output schema, the description explains that the return value is a string and details both summary report fields and release report fields. The failures and trends report contents are left to inferrence from the reportType enum, which is acceptable but slightly incomplete. Overall, the description is robust enough 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?

All five parameters are already described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics around reportType, the release/releaseId relationship, and the difference between summary and release report contents. That goes beyond the schema's short field descriptions, earning a 4.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Generate a formatted report for a project.' It then enumerates the supported report types and output formats, making it easy to understand both what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools that return raw metrics such as get_launches_statistics or get_launches_trends.

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 concrete usage conditions: reportType 'release' requires releaseId from list_releases, and days is ignored in that mode because release reports cover the entire release. It also references get_launches_statistics to clarify shared semantics. It does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling reporting/data tools, but the context is clear enough.

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