parse_generic_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses: 1) output format requirements ('整理为以下纯文本格式并反馈给用户'), 2) content preservation rules ('完整保留标题与文案的全部内容'), 3) error conditions ('若未能解析，将返回错误说明'), and 4) formatting restrictions ('禁止使用Markdown'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameters, returns, formatting instructions). Every sentence adds value: the opening states purpose, parameter section explains input, return section details output format and formatting rules. It could be slightly more concise in the formatting instructions but remains efficient.

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?

Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, output format, formatting requirements, content handling rules, and error conditions. The existence of an output schema means it doesn't need to detail return structure, and it appropriately focuses on usage context.

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 0% schema description coverage (schema only has title 'Share Link'), the description fully compensates. It explains the parameter accepts '任意平台的分享链接或包含链接的文本' (any platform's share link or text containing links) and specifically mentions '抖音/小红书亦可传入' (Douyin/Xiaohongshu can also be passed). This adds crucial semantic context beyond the bare 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: '解析任意短视频/图文链接' (parse any short video/image-text link) with 'generic 兜底逻辑' (generic fallback logic). It specifically distinguishes from siblings by handling '任意平台' (any platform) including Douyin/Xiaohongshu, unlike the sibling tools which are platform-specific (extract_douyin_text, parse_douyin_link, parse_xhs_link).

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: '直接启用 generic 兜底逻辑' (directly enable generic fallback logic), implying this should be used as a fallback when platform-specific tools aren't appropriate. It mentions specific platforms (抖音/小红书) that can be handled, and the sibling tool names clearly show this is the generic alternative to platform-specific parsers.

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