Parses Word, PDF, or Markdown requirement documents and extracts design requirements, turning unstructured specs into structured inputs for design tasks.
解析需求文档（Word/PDF/MD），提取设计要求
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | 需求文档的文件路径 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the accepted file formats, which is useful, but says nothing about required file existence/permissions, size limits, failure behavior, or what the extraction produces.
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 compact clause with the action front-loaded and the format list appended. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the missing behavioral detail.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe the return shape (e.g. structured design requirements vs raw text) and error conditions. It covers the input formats but leaves the output and failure modes entirely unspecified.
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% for the single filePath parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds supported formats, which is mildly relevant to what filePath may point at, but no path syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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 (解析/提取) and resource (需求文档), plus the accepted formats (Word/PDF/MD). An agent can grasp the tool's job without opening the schema, though it does not name or contrast the sibling tools it sits alongside.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as generate_design or extract_tokens. The role as an input-parsing step is only implied by the description text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.