export-findings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the export purpose and does not disclose output format, side effects, whether it is a read operation, permissions needed, or any post-export behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 compact sentence with zero filler and the purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though the brevity sacrifices some substance that is penalized in other dimensions.

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 an export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what form the export takes, where it is delivered, or what 'submitting to SRC' entails. It only states the high-level purpose, leaving an agent to guess about output format and side effects.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents scan_id as '扫描 ID' (scan ID). The description adds nothing beyond the schema about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('导出漏洞发现' / export vulnerability findings) plus a clear purpose context ('用于提交 SRC' / for SRC submission). It is distinguishable from most siblings like verify-cve or generate-report, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the similarly named generate-report.

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 phrase '用于提交 SRC' (for submitting to an SRC/Security Response Center) implies the intended use case, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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