export_special

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: side effect of incrementing an 'used_count' counter on each item (irreversible), and specifics about page content (stars, analysis, no internal terms). This goes beyond what annotations would provide, and since no annotations exist, the description fully bears the burden.

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 well-structured with sections, bullet points, and clear explanations. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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's complexity (4 parameters, side effects, output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, side effects, return format, and edge cases (empty special). No gaps identified.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail (special_id, papers, with_analysis, with_stars) including defaults and behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: export a special (a set of questions) into question and answer PDFs. It uses a specific verb ('导出') and resource ('专项'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'compose_special' or 'bind_special_to_lesson'.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose.

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