yuque_export_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful side effects: files are written to disk, images are downloaded, and INDEX.md plus GRAPH.md are generated. It still omits auth requirements, whether output is idempotent/overwrites existing files, and the cost of a bulk download.

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 sentence front-loads scope and output artifacts, followed by a brief reference pointer. Everything earns its place, though the pointer to an external doc slightly shifts detail out of the description.

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 bulk filesystem-writing operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what is produced but not where files land by default (only the schema covers output_dir) or how failures/partial exports are handled. Adequate but with visible 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 all four parameters (book_id, raw_body, output_dir, download_images) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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 names a specific verb (Export), resource scope (all docs in a repo), output format (Markdown files), and structure (TOC dir layout) with generated INDEX.md and GRAPH.md. The 'all docs in a repo' scope clearly separates it from the single-doc sibling yuque_export_doc.

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 scope ('all docs in a repo') implies when to use it versus single-doc export, but there is no explicit statement of alternatives, prerequisites, or when this heavy bulk operation is inappropriate. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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