doc_exists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does ('检查文档是否存在') without describing behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, what happens with invalid parameters, or what the output format is. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. The structure is logical (purpose then parameters), though the parameter section could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, but the formatting with extra whitespace slightly reduces efficiency.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and parameter names but lacks crucial context. It doesn't explain what 'exists' means in this context, what authentication is needed, or how routing affects the check. For a verification tool in a complex sibling set, this is minimally adequate but has clear 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%, but the description explicitly lists and names all 3 parameters (index, id, routing) in Chinese. This provides meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain what each parameter means or how they interact. For 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation earns a 4 rather than the baseline 3.

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 '检查文档是否存在' (Check if document exists), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose as a verification operation. However, it doesn't differentiate this from similar sibling tools like 'index_exists' or 'doc_get' that also check document/index status. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for document operations (doc_get, doc_delete, index_exists, etc.), there's no indication of when this existence check is preferred over retrieving the full document or checking index status. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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