导出托管投影

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

The description adds some behavioral detail (deterministic compression, returns file path and truncation list) beyond the annotations, which already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. It does not contradict annotations, but it omits potential side effects like file system writes or resource usage, which could be relevant.

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 that efficiently conveys the core action and output. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description mentions returning a file path and truncation list, but does not elaborate on what these contain or how they relate to the output schema. For a tool with no input parameters, the description is somewhat self-contained, yet it lacks details about the output structure or potential error conditions, making it slightly incomplete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't invent any. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since there is no parameter information to add.

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 action: deterministic compression of the portable Registry into a bounded projection, with a return of file path and truncation list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_pipeline or audit. However, the term 'hosted projection' is somewhat technical and could be clearer for general use.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not describe typical scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice. The description lacks usage context.

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