project_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies side effects by exporting files to a new directory, but does not clarify whether the source project is modified, what response is returned, or what happens on errors. This leaves important operational behavior undisclosed.

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 front-loads the verb, output contents, destination, and purpose. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The core information is present: two well-described parameters, a clear export target, and the review-oriented purpose. However, the lack of annotations, absence of an output schema, and no sibling differentiation leave the agent with gaps around return behavior and tool selection.

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%: both required parameters ('project' and 'dest') have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds context about the output contents but does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond the schema, 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 states a clear verb ('导出' / export) and specific output artifacts (UTF-8 IL text, hashes, references, static check JSON) to a new directory. This makes the tool's function identifiable, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like package_project.

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 phrase '供审查' (for review) implies an intended use case, and the schema preconditions (complete project, new non-existent destination) provide some context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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