查看页面证据

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a read operation but does not disclose whether any side effects occur, what job state is required, or how errors are handled. There is no additional 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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too minimal. It fails to provide the job context, parameter semantics, or any usage instructions, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly beyond basic name guessing.

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 has zero description coverage and the description does not explain the parameters. The meaning of include_blocks is especially ambiguous, as the description mentions '识别块' (recognition blocks) but does not link it to the optional parameter.

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 action ('读取'/'reads') and the specific resource (the specified page) and what data it retrieves (recognized text, confidence, blocks, warnings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_page_image_evidence, which deals with images. The verb and object are specific.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any context about prerequisites. It does not mention that it belongs to a job context or how it differs from inspection tools like inspect_pdf_text_layer.

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