export_get_last_report

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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that this tool recalls a stored summary (path, preset) rather than performing an export. It does not detail what happens when no previous export exists, but for a simple zero-parameter read-only query this is sufficient.

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 two short sentences per language, with the action stated first and the purpose second. There is no filler, and the bilingual duplication is a deliberate localization choice rather than verbosity.

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?

Given no parameters, simple read-only annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns, which export it refers to, and why an agent would call it. The only minor omission is behavior when no prior export call exists, which is unlikely to prevent correct invocation.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema itself carries all parameter information. The description correctly adds no parameter details, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 and resource: '返回上一次导出调用的结果摘要' / 'Return the result summary of the last export call', with concrete examples such as path and preset. This clearly distinguishes it from the many export_* sibling tools, which perform exports rather than report on the last one.

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 '便于排查导出失败' / 'Useful for troubleshooting a failed export' gives a clear context for when to call it: after an export fails or needs verification. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the diagnostic intent is clear.

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