运行体检

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly describes the tool's read-only diagnostic nature, the difference between fast and deep modes (including that fast mode skips OCR model loading), and immediate return behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as PaddlePaddle initialization or error conditions.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a key behavioral note. No redundant words or unnecessary details.

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 sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and mode behavior, and since an output schema exists, return values need not be listed. It could have added explicit guidance on when to run each mode, but for a simple health check tool it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'deep_probe' has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('检查' / check) and clearly identifies the target resources (设备、内存、显卡、OCR相关依赖), while also mentioning the output (推荐处理模式). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling PDF/OCR job tools.

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 this is a preflight health check, especially the fast mode for quick feedback, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like diagnose_pdf or plan_pdf_job. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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