export_errorbook

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the default record filter (only user-included, validated, re-checked records), what include_drafts unlocks, that the full export directory contains answers and original answers, and that nothing is auto-published or sent. This is meaningful behavior the annotations don't convey.

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 content is dense and front-loads the outputs, but it is a run-on sequence of semicolon-separated clauses mixing outputs, packaging warnings, defaults, and prerequisites. It is complete rather than wasteful, but the structure makes it hard to parse quickly.

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 semantics need not be spelled out, yet the description helpfully names practice_bundle_path and manifest_path and explains their contents. Combined with the default-filter explanation and the include_drafts note, most of what an agent needs is present; only record_ids's expected form remains unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains include_drafts well ('允许带待复核标记的草稿'), but record_ids semantics are only implied (records to export, subject to the default filter). Worse, it references 'clean_evidence_ids', which is not a parameter in the schema, creating confusion about the actual input surface.

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 first sentence states a clear verb (导出/export) and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced (错题本, 变式题册, 答案册, 原卷证据图). An agent immediately knows this produces a printable export bundle. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like query_errorbook or make_clean_copy, 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?

Strong contextual guidance: it names the downstream action ('给学生材料时使用此包并完整解压') and an explicit exclusion ('不要复制含答案的整个导出目录'), plus a prerequisite ('先read_study_record查看exercise_validation和clean_copy_validation'). This tells the agent when and how to use the output, though it does not explicitly contrast against any alternative tool.

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