Export Chapter PRD

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and destination but does not reveal potential side effects like file overwriting, directory creation, or failure behavior if the chapter/project is missing. The agent would be uncertain about idempotency and cleanup.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the action ('export'), resource, destination, and purpose. Every word contributes valuable information with 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?

For a simple two-parameter export tool without an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and destination. However, it omits behavioral details such as overwrite semantics and error handling that would make it fully self-contained, especially 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the two parameters (chapter_id, project_id), and the tool description provides no additional meaning about them. No format, relationship, or usage context is given, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

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 uses the specific verb 'export' and identifies the resource ('章节 PRD' / chapter PRD) with a clear destination ('.taskmaster/docs/') and intended downstream use ('供 Task Master parse_prd 使用'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_chapter or split_chapter_to_scenes.

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 purpose clause 'supply for Task Master parse_prd' implies the use case (export a PRD for parsing), and mentions the destination directory. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or what prerequisites exist (e.g., chapter must already exist), so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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