Export a SoulSpec v0.4 package (soul.json, SOUL.md, IDENTITY.md) to ClawSouls, enabling agents to maintain persistent personality and identity across sessions.
导出 SoulSpec v0.4 包（soul.json + SOUL.md + IDENTITY.md），进 ClawSouls 分发。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_dir | No | 输出目录，默认当前目录 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output package contents and distribution context, but says nothing about whether files are overwritten, required permissions, side effects, or error behavior for what is clearly a generation/export 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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core action and outputs. Every element earns its place.
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 one-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and artifacts. However, it remains incomplete regarding usage context and behavioral details such as overwrite semantics, which an agent would need for safe invocation.
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 the single parameter (target_dir) is already fully documented as the output directory defaulting to the current directory. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb (导出/export) and names the exact resource and artifacts (SoulSpec v0.4 package with soul.json, SOUL.md, IDENTITY.md) plus the distribution target (ClawSouls). Sibling tools are all unrelated, so the purpose is unambiguous and easily distinguished.
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 states what the tool produces but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. Usage is only faintly implied by the distribution phrase, but that is insufficient for an agent to decide confidently when to call this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.