export_handoff_pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only/export nature, zero cost, non-involvement of the platform, and exposes three non-obvious failure modes about TTS audio, trim offsets, and time-base semantics. This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations could convey.

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?

Though long, every section earns its place: the core result is front-loaded, the workflow is numbered, pitfalls are grouped under a clear warning heading, and the alternative is stated last. The structure makes the density manageable.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It not only explains what is returned but names key manifest fields, warns about offset and trim semantics, and routes the agent to the correct downstream tool and alternative.

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 schema has one self-explanatory parameter, episode_id, and the description references '本集' but never explicitly defines the parameter or its meaning beyond that. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description does not fully compensate, though the single parameter is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 action and resource: exporting a per-episode handoff manifest with download URLs for raw clips, dialogue, SFX, music, and subtitles. It clearly differentiates itself from compose_episode by emphasizing that the platform does not perform final assembly, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools without opening schemas.

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?

It provides an explicit recommended workflow, names the follow-up tool get_handoff_toolchain, and gives the exact condition for choosing the alternative compose_episode. This is unusually clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, leaving little to inference.

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