stagenth · 文档生成

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the conversion is local and non-AI, the cost (2 credit/次), and refund policy. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a file conversion tool, 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 extremely concise (two sentences plus a bullet of covered structures). It front-loads the purpose with the verb and output format, and each piece of information is essential. No wasted words.

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 simple conversion tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it supports (common Markdown structures), and what it returns (download URL). It could mention URL usage or expiration, but overall it is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., optional document title, filename, markdown text). It does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 clearly states '把 Markdown 渲染成 Word(.docx) 文件' (render Markdown to Word docx), specifying the verb, resource, and output format. It distinguishes from sibling tools (md_to_pdf, md_to_pptx) by targeting docx exclusively.

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 provides context such as '纯本地转换、不生成 AI 内容' (pure local conversion, no AI content) and '失败自动退款' (auto refund on failure), giving guidance on when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not or alternative comparisons.

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

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: pure local rendering with weasyprint, Chinese language support, no AI content generation, automatic refund on failure, and a credit cost of 2 per use. These go beyond what annotations would provide, though no annotations exist. It does not mention authorization or destructive effects, but the context is clear for a file creation tool.

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 concise with two clear paragraphs. The first sentence states the core action and result. The second paragraph adds technical details and policies. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (Markdown to PDF conversion) and lack of output schema, the description covers the process, result, cost, and failure policy. It does not explain the file transfer station or how the download URL is used, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema. It briefly mentions 'optional title' and 'optional filename' but does not elaborate further.

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 clearly states the tool renders Markdown into a PDF, saves it to a file transfer station, and returns a download URL. It specifically mentions 'PDF' which distinguishes it from sibling tools md_to_docx and md_to_pptx.

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 implies usage for converting Markdown to PDF but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like md_to_docx or md_to_pptx. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

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

Discloses key behaviors: local rendering, cost (1 credit), automatic refund on failure, output goes to file transfer station and returns download URL. No annotations present, so description carries full burden; it does so adequately.

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 short, efficient paragraphs. Front-loaded with purpose and formatting rules. No unnecessary words.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, description covers main behavior, parameter usage, cost, and refund policy. Fairly complete for a conversion tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining how to use markdown_text with # and ##, and clarifies that title is optional and overrides #. Beyond 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?

Clearly states 'Render Markdown to PPT' with specific formatting rules (# for cover, ## for slides, lists for bullet points). Distinguishes from sibling tools (md_to_docx, md_to_pdf) by specifying output format.

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?

Mentions 'AI writes an outline in one step' as a usage scenario and highlights local rendering with zero external cost, but does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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