export_bioos_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so: it does not indicate if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects, rate limits, or what the export entails. The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, concise phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the tool's action, though it lacks depth. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic intent.

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 (export operation with 1 parameter but nested properties), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what metadata is exported, the format, or how it relates to the output schema. While an output schema exists, the description fails to provide necessary context for tool selection and use.

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 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information—it does not explain what 'cfg' contains, the purpose of fields like 'ak', 'sk', or 'export_path', or how parameters interact. This leaves all parameter semantics unclear.

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 'Bio-OS 导出工作空间元信息' restates the tool name 'export_bioos_workspace' in Chinese, making it a tautology. It does not specify what '导出' (export) entails or what '元信息' (metadata) includes, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_workspace' or 'create_workspace_bioos'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'list_workspace' or 'create_workspace_bioos', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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