export_research

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: it refuses stale artifacts (拒绝过期产物) and discloses that full text is not packaged (原全文不打包), which prevents a false expectation about export contents. It still omits error/auth/return behavior.

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 dense sentence with formats front-loaded and constraints trailing, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's scope, though the run-on semicolon structure compresses several distinct facts (formats, staleness, style, packaging) into one breath.

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?

For a multi-format export tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers formats, style, and packaging scope but leaves key gaps: it never explains what artifact_ids are or what happens (error vs partial) when artifacts are stale. Adequate but with clear holes an agent would want filled.

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% for all three parameters. The description compensates only for 'style' by giving the allowed values (gb7714/apa), which is helpful since the schema has no enum. project_id and artifact_ids receive no meaning at all (e.g., what an artifact_id refers to, id format), leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 resource, and enumerates the concrete output formats (MD/JSON/CSV/BibTeX/RIS/CSL-JSON/HTML/PDF/DOCX), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent tools like convert_document or build_evidence_pack, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative; the agent must infer that this is the batch-export path versus convert_document for single documents. The only usage-flavored hints are the style options and the staleness rejection, which are not framed as selection conditions.

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