preview_document_deletion

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses pagination continuation via next_offset, that a changed digest invalidates prior reads, that an 'unresolved' state means the list is not complete, that symlinks are not followed, and that external files/copies/backups/provider data are out of scope. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 dense and front-loaded, leading with the read-only guarantee and impact scope. Every clause carries operational meaning, though the run-on punctuation makes it slightly harder to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given the tool's complexity, the description covers scope boundaries, pagination, digest invalidation, completeness criteria, and the handoff to delete_document — nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It explains next_offset-based continuation (covering offset/limit indirectly) but never defines limit/offset semantics or the document_id contract, leaving gaps for a low-coverage schema.

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 opening clause names a specific verb (read-only check / 只读检查) and resource (document deletion impact), and explicitly negates the destructive alternative with 绝不执行删除. An agent can immediately distinguish this from delete_document in the sibling list.

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?

It states the gating condition for the destructive counterpart: delete_document may only be called after a complete list exists and the user has given an explicit instruction. That is clear routing guidance, though it does not explicitly enumerate other preview/listing alternatives.

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