分享处理记录

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one key behavior: by default, local paths are redacted ("默认脱敏本地路径"). However, it does not disclose side effects like file writes to output_dir, whether it modifies or deletes anything, or the impact of include_sensitive. Thus it provides some but incomplete transparency.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action and outputs. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse. However, it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or sections, which could improve clarity for a multi-format tool, but for its length 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?

Despite having 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the default output location when output_dir is null, the meaning of max_records, or how the generated files should be consumed. The tool's role versus get_processing_history is also unaddressed, making it incomplete for a file-generating tool.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters root, output_dir, max_records, or include_sensitive. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. The only indirect reference is to 'default redaction,' which relates to include_sensitive's default false, but this is not explicit.

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 function: generating shareable processing history files in JSON, Markdown, and HTML formats ("生成可分享的处理历史JSON、Markdown和HTML文件"). It mentions the default redaction of local paths, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_processing_history, so it lacks distinct sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_processing_history or other history-related tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. The only implicit signal is the word 'shareable,' but that is not enough for effective tool selection.

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