convert_document

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts — no re-upload of source, no guarantee of Word layout fidelity — but says nothing about where output is written or whether it overwrites existing artifacts.

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?

A single compact sentence with the capabilities front-loaded and the two disclaimers trailing; no filler and every clause carries information.

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 does list the produced formats, which is the most important missing structured info. However, for a conversion tool it omits where/how results are retrieved, overwrite behavior, and any prerequisite on the parse state, leaving gaps.

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 0% and the single parameter version_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase '已有解析' loosely implies version_id refers to an existing parse version, but format, sourcing, and valid values are unexplained.

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?

States a concrete verb and target ('export an existing parse') plus the three output formats (Markdown, structured JSON, table CSV), which distinguishes it from parse_document and read_parse_result. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces.

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?

'不重新上传' implies this runs on an already-parsed version rather than re-parsing, hinting at when to use it over parse_document, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit precondition (e.g. parse job must have succeeded) is given.

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