Dossier Export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: the export excludes Cookies, tokens, and browser Profile, and every judgment links to source/evidence IDs. However, it omits whether the tool writes files to disk, whether it overwrites existing output, what auth is required, and whether the operation is reversible.

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 compact sentences with the artifact list and the privacy constraint front-loaded. No filler; the second sentence carries the meaningful caveat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, which the definition correctly relies on. But given zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete about side effects (file writing) and the semantics of its own parameters.

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 parameters, and it does not. None of the three parameters (research_id, angles, output_dir) are explained – in particular output_dir and angles are left entirely opaque, and the listed export contents are not the same as the parameters.

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 names a specific verb (导出/export) and resource (文章研究底稿/dossier) and enumerates the artifact types produced (manifest, 报告, sources, evidence, viewpoints, writing-brief). This makes the tool's output concrete. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like dossier_result or dossier_query, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use export versus the other dossier tools (result, status, query, compare). No prerequisites, no preconditions, no named alternatives. The agent gets 'what' but not 'when'.

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