Export Bookmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful constraint that output lands in a 'controlled directory' (受控目录), but says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing .bkmx or permission requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence with the artifact type and destination constraint front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it omits needed detail.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a tool with three undocumented required parameters and a file-writing side effect, the description leaves too much unspecified to call it 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 0% and the description documents none of the three required parameters. It does not clarify what aprx_path expects (a full .aprx file path), whether map_name must match an existing map, or what form output_path takes, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource+artifact: exporting map bookmarks to a .bkmx file. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_bookmarks, create_bookmark, or import_bookmarks, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_bookmarks/create_bookmark/import_bookmarks, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether a project or map must be open, whether the output path must be pre-authorized).

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