create_evidence_by_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action via PDF upload but does not mention side effects (e.g., file storage, processing time), authentication needs, rate limits, or any constraints beyond the parameter. This is insufficient for a creation 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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. This is appropriate given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what 'new evidence' means in the system context, whether the PDF is stored or parsed, or any return value. A minimally complete description for a creation tool should at least mention the expected outcome or confirmation.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter described in schema). The tool description adds no new information beyond the schema's parameter description ('Base64 encoded content of PDF file'). Since coverage is high, baseline is 3; the description does not elevate it further.

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's action: creating new evidence by uploading a PDF. The verb '创建' (create) and resource '证据' (evidence) are specific, and the method '通过上传 PDF 文件' (by uploading PDF file) distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_search or evidence_summary, which are read-only or retrieval focused.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it. It is a simple declarative statement of functionality without usage context.

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