geo_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses atomic overwrite via fsync + os.replace, error codes like extension_mismatch and target_exists, failure cleanup, no undo group, and server-side response cap. This is thorough and goes well beyond basic statements.

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 compact and information-dense, using a bulleted list. Every line adds useful information without fluff. The title 'translator 驱动的原子几何导出' is front-loaded, and the rest is precise. No wasted words.

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 complexity of an export tool with no output schema, the description covers most critical behavioral aspects (formats, overwrite, atomicity, undo, error handling). However, it doesn't describe the return value on success or clarify what 'translator' refers to, and it omits ctx/node_path semantics. Still, it is largely complete for invoking the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for format (accepted values), output_path (extension matching), and overwrite (behavior when target exists). However, it leaves ctx and node_path undocumented, which are required parameters. Still, the meaningful detail for three parameters is strong.

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 clearly states this is an atomic geometry export tool, with specific verb '导出' (export) and resource 'geometry'. It provides detailed behavior including format specifics and atomic overwrite, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_geometry_data or get_geo_summary which are read-only.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (for geometry export) and implies it should be used when file output with atomicity is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The error conditions are helpful but no direct comparison to siblings.

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