Analyze Document Fidelity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not indicate if the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or produces side effects. This is a significant gap for a diagnostic 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets to the point without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and specific risks, though it could be slightly more structured with separate details on input and output.

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 description does not explain what the output contains (e.g., risk categories, severity, or actionable items). Without an output schema, the agent needs this information to interpret results. For a diagnostic tool, this is a notable omission.

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 input schema has two parameters (workspaceId optional, docId required), but the description does not explain their purpose or usage. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool 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 the tool inspects documents for markdown export fidelity risk, mentioning specific risks like unsupported AFFiNE block flavours and risky content paths. It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_doc_markdown and export_with_fidelity_report by focusing on pre-export analysis, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_with_fidelity_report. The description implies it is for pre-checking fidelity before export, but lacks explicit context on when it should or should not be used.

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