kirikiri_tjs2100_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'replace' and 'rebuild blob' which imply mutation, but does not state side effects, safety, reversibility, or whether the operation is in-place or produces a new file (output parameter exists but is not described).

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 sentence that is compact and front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning (the action, target, and the engine context), with no filler or repetition.

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 tool that modifies game data, the description is minimal. It gives one contextual clue (KrKrZSceneManager) but omits important information like prerequisites, side effects, return values, and how the input/output arguments relate to the operation. The presence of an optional 'output' parameter adds ambiguity that is not clarified.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema by identifying that the 'strings' array replaces the TJS2100 DATA string table and that the result is a rebuilt blob. However, it does not explicitly map each parameter (e.g., 'input' vs 'output') and lacks detail on format expectations, so it partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Replace TJS2100 DATA string table and rebuild blob') with a clear resource and technical context (KrKrZSceneManager). It is not a tautology and conveys the core intent, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kirikiri_tjs2100_import or split/merge.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only names the operation, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate relative to sibling tools.

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