dump_prototypes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the output content, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The lack of behavioral context leaves ambiguity about safety and side effects.

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 sentence in Chinese that front-loads the action and includes a clarifying parenthetical. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be structured to include parameter info without adding much length.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description should provide more details on the parameter and the return format. It mentions the output contains 'centroid and weight' but lacks specifics on structure, datatypes, or how to interpret the data. The absence of parameter description makes the tool less usable.

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%, and the description does not explain the lone required parameter 'sessionId'. The description focuses solely on the output, offering no guidance on the parameter's purpose or expected values. This is a critical gap for a tool with a single required parameter.

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 explicitly states the tool exports a prototype library with specific content (situation centroid and read weight), and indicates its utility for audit/migration. It uses a clear verb '导出' (export) and distinguishes itself from the listed siblings like get_stats or get_calibration, which serve different purposes.

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 mentions the tool can be used for 'audit/migration', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools, but the implied usage is sufficient.

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