export_evidence_matrix_v1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions '导出' (export), which suggests a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, or disclose any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. This lack of behavioral disclosure leaves the agent with insufficient information to assess operational impact.

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 concise with a brief Chinese sentence followed by a structured list of args and returns. No redundant information. However, it could be more front-loaded with an English summary for non-Chinese users. The structure is efficient, and every part contributes value.

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 presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description's absence of detailed return value documentation is acceptable. It covers the core functionality and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage context like when to choose this over similar export tools, and does not explain the relationship between the two output matrices. Still, it provides the minimum viable information for a simple export operation.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: comm_id/topic mutual exclusivity, format options ('json' or 'csv'), and limit_docs as a document limit. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema. However, limit_docs could be more precise (e.g., whether it limits per matrix or total). Nonetheless, it substantially aids parameter understanding.

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 PaperMatrix and ClaimMatrix, which is specific and uses a verb+resource structure. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like export_claim_matrix_grouped_v1, which also exports claim matrices but grouped. Thus, the purpose is clear but lacks 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parameter descriptions imply mutual exclusivity between comm_id and topic, but the description does not provide use cases, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing this export over others. The agent receives no direct usage direction.

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