arf_export_evidence_bundle

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnly=false), idempotent, and non-destructive; the description's 'v1 is not modified' reinforces non-destructiveness but adds little new. It does not say whether an existing v2 bundle is overwritten, nor what apply_curation does or why it defaults to true, leaving curation behavior opaque.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence is a behavioral caveat rather than actionable guidance.

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 write/export tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a curation toggle that changes results, the description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics, overwrite behavior, and when to prefer this export over its near-identical sibling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It never mentions output_dir or apply_curation, leaving the meaning and effect of the curation flag entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (出力する/export) and resource (全特徴量と出典別候補を massbank-context 用 v2 バンドル). It partially distinguishes itself by naming the v2 bundle format and noting v1 is untouched, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the very similar sibling dataset_export_evidence_bundle.

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 only guidance is 'existing v1 is not modified', which describes behavior, not when to choose this tool over dataset_export_evidence_bundle or arf_export_differential. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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