yuque_export_resources

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: it extracts URLs from body_html, writes into <output_dir>/images/ and <output_dir>/attachments/, and returns a URL→local_path mapping. However, it says nothing about overwrite behavior for pre-existing files, handling of unreachable resources, permissions/auth needs, or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing Chinese reference pointer ('详见 references/api/extended_api.md') is mildly extraneous and not self-contained for a non-Chinese-reading agent, slightly reducing the score.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains both the on-disk output locations and the returned mapping, so an agent knows what it gets back. Error handling and overwrite semantics remain uncovered, keeping it short of a 5.

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 three parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the output_dir layout that the schema already contains. It adds no new syntax or format detail for id or book_id, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Download images/attachments from a document to local directory') and then spells out the mechanism: extract from body_html, download, return a URL→local_path mapping. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like yuque_export_doc, yuque_export_repo, and yuque_upload_attachment without opening any schema.

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 context ('from a document') implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives named. It never contrasts itself with yuque_export_doc or explains whether it should be paired with a doc export, so usage is left to inference.

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