export-note-resource

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

No annotations are present, and the description omits any behavioral details such as destuctiveness, authentication requirements, or side effects. The burden is fully on the description, which is insufficient.

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 concise but not effectively so; it fails to provide any valuable information. Underspecification does not count as conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one doesn't.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, required permissions, or what exporting entails.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meanings. It does not. Parameters like 'guid', 'hash', 'outputPath', 'resourceGuid' are not described, leaving the agent without clue about their usage.

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 '导资源' is a tautology, essentially restating the tool name without clarifying what 'resource' means or what the export does. It fails to specify the verb+resource clearly, and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'attach-file' or 'delete-note-resource'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context, exclusions, or any hint of appropriate scenarios.

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