查看处理历史

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that local full paths are hidden by default, which aligns with the include_sensitive parameter. It implies a read-only operation via '汇总' but does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness, permissions, or other behavioral traits. The added privacy note is useful but limited.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core function and includes a relevant behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description must be richer to be complete. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the tool lacks guidance on parameter usage and selection rationale. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent to infer correctly.

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 description must compensate for parameter meanings. It implicitly covers root ('指定目录') and include_sensitive ('默认隐藏本地完整路径'), but leaves status, source_pdf, and max_records unexplained. While parameter names are semi-descriptive, the description adds only marginal value over the 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 uses the specific verb '汇总' (summarize) with a clear resource: PDF processing history under a specified directory, including status, page count, and quality metrics. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_job_status and share_processing_history by focusing on directory-level historical summaries.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or context like 'use for directory-level summaries' beyond the core statement. The description lacks any usage-directed language.

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