批量提取书库

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers useful behavioral context: background scheduling, immediate return, dynamic concurrency based on CPU/memory/worker load, and support for resumable transfers. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., where output files are written) or error-handling behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant filler. Every sentence adds distinct value: operation, monitoring, concurrency behavior, and resume support.

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?

The description covers the core async workflow, monitoring approach, and dynamic resource adaptation, which is valuable for a complex tool. However, with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, it leaves significant gaps in how to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema likely covers return values, but parameter semantics remain a clear deficiency.

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%, yet the description does not explain any parameter by name. It only hints at root ('按目录'), concurrency ('并发数'), and resume ('断点续传'), but leaves mode, max_books, output_dir, max_workers, and max_pages_per_book undefined. This is insufficient for an agent to set parameters correctly.

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 a specific verb and resource: '按目录批量提取PDF书籍' (batch extract PDF books by directory), and distinguishes itself from siblings like extract_book_text by emphasizing batch processing and background scheduling. It also names the monitoring tool (get_batch_status), further disambiguating its role.

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 clear context: use this tool for directory-level batch extraction with immediate return and background OCR workers. It points to get_batch_status for progress monitoring, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as single-book extraction tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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