导出存档码

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool exports a non-destructive save code, including the code prefix and how to use it to resume play. While it doesn't explicitly state 'does not modify game state', the export semantics strongly imply a read-only operation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action (export save code) and followed by practical usage instructions. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, what the output looks like, and how to use that output. It is complete given the low complexity and no annotations.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description adds relevant meaning about the output (a TL1-prefixed save code). The schema is empty, so the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than input details, earning the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 the tool exports a save code for the current progress, with a specific prefix format (TL1). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tokenlife_load, which is about restoring progress.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to save current progress by exporting a code that can be pasted back into tokenlife.me. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is evident and complements tokenlife_load.

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