extract_chinese_text

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: a hard input length cap of 200000 characters and the semantics of the error field (empty string on success). This is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by cleanly separated Args and Returns sections. The Returns section slightly duplicates the existing output schema, but the structure is tight and each line earns its place.

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-parameter, non-destructive utility with an output schema, the definition covers everything needed: purpose, the input constraint, and the meaning of the returned fields including the error indicator. Since an output schema exists, the Returns prose is redundant rather than necessary, which keeps this just short of a 5.

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 input schema alone carries no meaning for the sole parameter. The description compensates by defining 'text' as the text to be processed and stating its maximum length (200000 characters), which is exactly the information an agent needs before invoking.

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 gives a specific verb (抽取/extract) and resource (中文字符/Chinese characters), and it enumerates precisely what is excluded: punctuation, spaces, English, numbers and other characters. An agent understands the transformation unambiguously. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools count_chinese_characters / count_chinese_characters_batch.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: the description never states the conditions under which this extraction is preferred over the sibling counting tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is clear, but routing guidance is entirely absent.

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