ir

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool also performs consistency validation on the extraction layer, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about what the validation reports, whether export can fail, or what happens on inconsistency.

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 compact sentence with the export action front-loaded and validation appended. It is efficient, though the two bundled operations are not separated or prioritized.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves unclear how export and validation interact, what the validation scope is, and what the caller receives, which matters since no output schema documents the return shape.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, project, and workdir are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter syntax or interplay, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs the verb 导出 (export) with a specific resource, Localization IR, and adds a second action, validating extraction-layer consistency. It compensates for the opaque tool name 'ir', though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like scan or pack that may also touch IR data.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or ordering relative to scan/pack/translate, and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from this description when exporting IR is the right call versus other pipeline steps.

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