诊断PDF

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool performs analysis (checking type, risk, ratio) and provides suggestions, which implies a read-only diagnostic behavior. However, it does not disclose whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, or how it handles password-protected PDFs.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates several diagnostic dimensions. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.

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 presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the description outlines the key diagnostic outputs. However, the lack of parameter semantics and explicit usage context means the description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in all scenarios.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (path, password, max_pages). While 'path' is self-explanatory, the meaning and purpose of 'password' and 'max_pages' are entirely absent, leaving the agent without critical usage details.

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 uses a specific verb '检查' (check/inspect) and clearly identifies the resource (PDF) and the aspects examined: type, garbled text risk, scanned page ratio, and recommended actions. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools that rescue, extract, or plan, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used to diagnose a PDF before taking action, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tool alternatives are referenced, so guidance is only implicit from the tool's name and purpose.

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