corpus_export

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: exports carry a version number and HMAC signature, samples are de-identified (脱敏), and the action is logged as a corpus_export audit event. However, it omits file-write side effects to out_dir, permission/prerequisite requirements, and any rate or size limits.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the deliverable before the sub-components. It is compact with no filler, though the heavy use of internal jargon and parenthetical sub-clauses reduces immediate readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the three export artifacts contain plus the version/signature/audit wrapper, which effectively communicates the return surface. It is close to complete for a complex export tool, missing only when-to-use framing.

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 schema already documents scope, out_dir, data_dir, and rules_only. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('训练语料导出' = training corpus export) and enumerates the three deliverables (rules / FDE methodology / labeled audit samples). This distinguishes it from the sibling ruleset_export, which appears to export rules only. The dense jargon makes it slightly hard to parse, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, and no alternatives are named despite ruleset_export and rules-exporting siblings in the tool list. The rules_only param implies a variant mode but the description never frames it as a selection condition. Usage must be inferred.

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