dm_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses overwrite prohibition, writer selection per format, dtype-preserving uncompressed TIFF output with embedded calibration, and calibration side files for every format. It stops short of stating error behavior when the target file already exists or what is returned, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core constraint (new file, no overwrite) and then proceeds format by format. Every clause is substantive, though the compressed technical phrasing makes it slightly harder to scan.

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 three-parameter export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers format-specific writing behavior and side-file generation but omits what the tool returns (path, list of side files?) and how it fails when the target exists. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema already documents path, format, and image_id in detail. The description's format list and PNG rejection merely restate what the schema's format parameter already says, adding no new parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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 and resource ('导出到新文件' – export to a new file) and enumerates supported formats, so the agent knows this writes datasets to disk. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling dm_spectrum_export, leaving ambiguity about which export path applies to spectra vs images.

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 establishes key usage constraints ('禁止覆盖' – no overwrite, and PNG is rejected) and implies format selection, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance against sibling tools such as dm_spectrum_export or dm_2d_capture. The agent must infer the intended scope from the format list.

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