parse_local_pdf

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) and the description carries substantive behavior: free, offline, no upload, OCR required for scanned pages, and a real side effect (switching parsers expires old citations). Missing explanation of why readOnlyHint is false or what the call produces, but it adds notable context beyond annotations.

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?

Four dense clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose and no wasted filler. Every clause (offline/no-upload, OCR caveat, verification caveat, citation invalidation) carries information, though the density borders on terse.

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?

Covers purpose, OCR limitation, verification caveats, and a side effect, which is solid for a simple parse tool. However, it omits any guidance on the required version_id and gives no hint of the result shape, which an agent needs given there is no output schema.

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 single required parameter 'version_id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what a version identifier is. With low coverage the description should compensate, but it adds no parameter meaning.

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 specific verb+resource ('解析PDF文字层' = parse PDF text layer) with explicit scope qualifiers (offline, no upload, text-layer only). It is clearly distinguishable from the generic sibling 'parse_document' by emphasizing local/offline operation and text-layer limitations.

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?

Gives clear conditions: use for text-layer PDFs offline, but scanned pages need TextIn OCR (routing the agent elsewhere). It also warns that switching parsers invalidates old citations. It stops short of naming the exact OCR sibling tool, so the alternative is implied rather than explicit.

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