import_document

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

Annotations declare write semantics (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: rejection of directories/pipes/devices, color-original preservation, and the no-TextIn guarantee. It stops short of describing the failure/response behavior in detail, but the added constraints are substantive.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the purpose and constraints (formats, size, location) before the caveats about rejected input types and TextIn. Every clause earns its place; only the trailing semicolon clause could arguably be split for readability.

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 single-path import tool with an existing output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies formats, size/page limits, rejection cases, and the no-TextIn boundary, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only omission is the path-format detail, which is minor given the output schema handles returns.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the single 'path' parameter carries no format documentation. The description partially compensates by implying the path must point inside the dedicated materials directory and to a supported file type, but it never states whether the path is absolute/relative or its exact shape, so gaps remain.

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 (导入/import) and resource (PDF/JPG/PNG 文件), and adds scope qualifiers: local saved files, dedicated materials directory, 20MiB/20-page limits. The clause '不会调用 TextIn' distinguishes it from the parse_document sibling, so an agent can separate it from parsing tools without opening either 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?

Clearly frames the intended input (user-specified file already saved to the local materials directory) and implies use before parsing by noting TextIn is not invoked. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g., list_input_files or parse_document) or state when-not to use it, keeping it below a 5.

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