Extract PDF or text attachments from cached notifications using a zero-based index. Handles up to 8 MiB and 100 pages; scanned images are not OCR'd.
提取已缓存通知的 PDF/文本附件，序号从 0 开始。最多 8 MiB、100 页，扫描件不做 OCR。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | ||
| item_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable processing limits (max 8 MiB, 100 pages) and clarifies that scanned copies are not OCR'd—useful context beyond annotations. It does not mention auth or error handling.
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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by constraints. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.
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 read tool, annotations and output schema cover safety and return values. However, the required item_id parameter is undocumented and there is no usage context (e.g., how to obtain a valid item_id), leaving a gap for 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that index is 0-based, but item_id (the required parameter) is left completely unexplained; an agent cannot infer its format or source. Partial compensation only.
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 (提取/extract) and resource (PDF/文本附件 from cached notices), clearly distinct from sibling get_notice which retrieves notice content. Does not explicitly name alternatives, so 4.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites are provided. The only implicit context is 'cached notices', which is minimal and not framed as usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.