导出 AGC 报表

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral details: download URL validity (~5 minutes), optional local download with preview, and the 180-day time span limit. These are not in the annotations and materially help the agent decide how to handle results. No contradiction with annotations.

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: it front-loads the core purpose and behavior, then uses a bullet list for the report types. Every sentence carries necessary information; the length is justified by the need to enumerate 16 report types. No redundancy.

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 complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main flow (export, download, preview) and key constraints (time span). It does not detail the response format or explain all optional parameters, but the schema already documents many, and the description provides enough for an agent to successfully invoke the tool. Slightly incomplete for edge cases like extraQuery.

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 significantly enriches the 'report' parameter by mapping each enum value to its meaning (e.g., harmony-download = HarmonyOS 应用下载安装). It also clarifies downloadTo's purpose. However, it does not explain filters, groupBy, extraQuery, or site beyond the schema's partial descriptions (67% coverage). It adds value but does not fully compensate for all undocumented parameters.

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 exports operational reports in CSV/Excel, returns a download URL, and optionally downloads and previews. It lists all report types with meanings, making it unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like agc_request or agc_get_api_doc because it is specifically for report export.

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 provides clear context on when to use it (when exporting reports) and gives a practical tip (pass downloadTo if content is needed). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling tools are clearly different, so the guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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