get_document_info

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 states the tool returns a JSON overview but does not disclose any side effects, permissions needed, or detailed behavior (e.g., whether it is read-only). The behavioral description is minimal.

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 structured with a main purpose line, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, though the parameter description is too brief.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description partially covers what is returned (paragraphs, tables, brief paragraph info). However, it lacks detail on the exact structure and omits whether other elements like images are included, leaving some gaps.

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%, meaning the description must add meaning. It simply repeats the parameter name '文档路径' (file path) without providing any additional context, format, or example. The parameter is not explained beyond its existence in 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves an overview of a Word document, including paragraph and table counts and brief paragraph info, which distinguishes it from other tools like read_document_structure that likely provide full content. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 usage before reading full content ('用于在读取完整内容前快速了解文档结构'), which provides a usage context. It does not mention when not to use or explicitly compare to sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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