读取课件

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only nature and the shape of what comes back per page, plus a clear statement of what it does not do. It says nothing about error behavior for a missing/invalid path, page-count or file-size limits, or where the returned content goes.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with pipeline position followed by inputs, outputs, and exclusions. Nothing is wasted or repeated.

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, the description usefully specifies the per-page return fields, which is exactly the gap it must fill. Minor shortfall: no mention of failure modes for unreadable or unsupported files.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage already documented as a local .pdf or .pptx path. The description only restates the accepted formats, adding no path conventions or handling notes beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific action (读取 pdf/pptx) and the exact per-page payload returned (title, body text, image presence). The negative framing ('不写讲解，也不写 Notion') separates it from draft_lecture and any Notion-writing sibling without needing the schema.

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?

'流水线第一步' tells the agent this is the entry point of the pipeline, and the two exclusions rule out using it for lecture drafting or Notion output. It stops short of naming the follow-up tool (draft_lecture) or stating preconditions such as the file existing locally.

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