导出 Eolink 接口文档

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds critical behavioral context: '全量导出可能很大，会自动按字符上限截断' (automatic truncation by character limit), which is not conveyed by annotations. No contradiction.

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 clear structure: purpose, parameters, behavioral note, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the output format (OpenAPI/Swagger JSON) and truncation behavior. It references sibling tools for prerequisites. Could add explicit mention of project ID source, but that's in schema parameter description.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by stating project_id is required and hinting to obtain it via eolink_list_projects, and clarifying group_ids is optional for filtering groups. This provides context beyond the schema alone.

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 verb '导出' (export) and the resource '接口文档为 OpenAPI/Swagger JSON'. It specifies the required project_id and optional group_ids, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it's suitable for full export, not single API queries.

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 explicitly advises when to use ('一次性全量获取') and when not to ('日常查询单个接口' recommends alternatives). It names specific sibling tools (eolink_search_apis + eolink_get_api_detail) as better for daily use.

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