Analyze Document Fidelity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds context about unsupported flavours and risky paths, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or return format beyond the schema.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose and specific aspects without redundancy. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks any mention of the output format or return value, which would be helpful for an inspection tool. No output schema is provided, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect.

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?

Input schema descriptions are clear and cover 100% of parameters. Description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states specific verb 'Inspect' and resource 'document for markdown export fidelity risk'. It mentions key aspects like 'unsupported AFFiNE block flavours' and 'risky content paths'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'export_with_fidelity_report', the focus on risk inspection is distinct enough.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies use before export, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. Adequate but not explicit.

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