启动 OCR 容量基准

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: it runs in the background, returns immediately, does not block MCP, and uses independent, non-overlapping private PDF page samples. This goes beyond the structured schema data.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by relevant behavioral details. There is no redundancy or wasted content.

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 essential context for a simple start operation: when to run it, background execution, and immediate return. However, it leaves ambiguity about where profile_id comes from and does not point to plan_ocr_capacity_profile as a prerequisite, which is a notable gap.

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% and the description never mentions profile_id or explains how it relates to the planned benchmark. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value for this required 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 a specific action: run a planned capacity benchmark in the background when there is no production OCR. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like plan_ocr_capacity_profile and activate_ocr_capacity_profile by emphasizing 'planned' and the background/asynchronous nature.

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 an explicit precondition ('when the machine has no production OCR') and indicates that this is a background, non-blocking operation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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