File Trimacl Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait that this is a write operation that generates a CSV report file. However, it omits whether the file at csv_path is overwritten, whether elevated permissions are needed, and whether the export is long-running or blocking.

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 short sentence with the operation front-loaded and zero filler. The write-operation caveat is folded into the same sentence rather than padding the description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and parameter coverage is complete. But for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should say more about side effects, permissions, or overwrite behavior to be fully adequate.

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 every one of the 6 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (导出/export) and a specific resource (卷 ACL 迁移报告/volume ACL migration report), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It is clearly distinct from the sibling ACL tools file_acl_get and file_acl_set, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when this report tool should be preferred over alternatives like file_acl_get. The only usage hint is the parenthetical that it is a write operation producing a CSV.

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