read_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in annotations: pagination, in-order traversal, no OCR invocation, and paragraph-based positioning for pageless DOCX/text. It stays silent on error cases and result-size limits, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability and the OCR exclusion front-loaded. Slightly dense/ambiguous phrasing (当前解析片段) costs it the top mark, but nothing needs to be cut.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema, 0% param coverage, and many closely related siblings (read_page, read_parse_result, read_evidence, download_fulltext), the description leaves the agent unable to tell which read tool applies or what version_id refers to. It should route to siblings and clarify inputs.

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 description coverage is 0% with three parameters (version_id required, limit, offset). The description explains none of them — version_id's meaning and scope in particular is left entirely to inference, and limit/offset are only weakly implied by 分页. It does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 verb (读取) and resource (当前解析片段、页序、质量信息), and states the mode (分页、按原文顺序、不调用OCR). This distinguishes it from parse_document/parse_local_pdf style tools in the same family, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 clause 不调用OCR implies this tool reads already-parsed content and that a parse/OCR tool is needed otherwise, and 无页码的DOCX/文本用段落定位 hints at a fallback path. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs read_page, read_parse_result, download_fulltext, or any prerequisite statement — usage must be inferred.

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