cb_export

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

The description explicitly discloses that the tool does not change workspace state ('不改工作区状态'), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description clarifies the actual side-effect profile: it creates an export directory but leaves the workspace untouched. This is meaningful transparency for an export/write operation.

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 that front-loads the core action and immediately states the most important behavioral constraint. It contains no filler, repeated title information, or redundant restatement of the schema. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no nested objects or output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is produced, the side-effect constraint, and the intended use case (testing in a new conversation). It could add more about the package's internal structure or post-export steps, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide to use it correctly.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (root, name, to) with useful detail such as naming constraints and the required pre-existing container directory. The tool description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond noting the generated directory concept, which is already reflected in the 'to' parameter's description. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('导出分支交接包' / export branch handoff package) and clearly states what is produced: a self-contained directory for a new conversation. It also adds the key distinguishing property '不改工作区状态', which separates it from the mutation-oriented siblings (cb_discard, cb_rollback, cb_promote). No sibling tool appears to offer export functionality, so differentiation from the sibling list is clear.

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 gives a clear usage context: the package can be handed to a brand-new conversation for testing. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema already says (e.g., that the container directory must exist). Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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