get_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what 'detailed content' includes (text, images, layout), error behavior, or side effects. The existence of an output schema is not referenced, and no such context is added.

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, with a clear purpose statement and two well-defined arguments. There is no unnecessary information, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, so the description is minimally viable. However, the lack of usage context (when to choose this over get_index) and behavioral detail leaves gaps. Since an output schema exists, return values are presumably covered, but the description alone is not fully self-sufficient.

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?

The description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: file_path is the full path to the PDF, and page is 1-based. This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage, giving the agent the necessary context to populate the parameters correctly.

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 '获取 PDF 某一页的详细内容' (get detailed content of a specific PDF page), identifying the action and resource with specificity. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_index, which likely provides an index overview rather than page-level details.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists arguments and does not mention prerequisites, edge cases, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., get_index) would be more appropriate.

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