kb_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: what is included in the archive, that the operation is non-destructive (produces a separate artifact), and that the result is a file path or status text. It omits where the artifact is written, whether it requires permissions/disk space, and how long a full export takes.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then broken into short labeled lines for purpose, inputs, return, and next step. Nothing is padded; the 'no inputs' line is the only mildly redundant element and costs a few characters.

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 values need no elaboration, and the description covers scope, use cases, and the follow-up workflow. What remains unaddressed is operational context the agent may need, such as permissions, artifact location, and failure modes, which matters given the absence of annotations.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms '入参：无' (no inputs), which matches the empty schema and removes any doubt that the agent must supply something.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (package the entire knowledge base, active + archived, into a tar.gz backup), which is far more precise than a bare name restatement. The scope note ('active + archived') distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like kb_list, kb_search, and kb_write, none of which 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?

Gives two concrete use cases (machine migration, periodic backup) and names the complementary next tool, kb_import, for restoration on the new machine. It stops short of stating exclusions or when another tool would be preferable, so it is clear context without full when/when-not routing.

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