Analyze Document Fidelity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scope beyond annotations by naming the specific fidelity risks it examines, giving the agent a clearer sense of what is checked.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the inspection target and risk categories.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations cover behavior, and parameter documentation is complete. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance relative to export_with_fidelity_report, but otherwise the description is sufficient for this read-only analysis tool.

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 100%, and both docId and workspaceId are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 verb ('inspect'), resource ('document'), and concrete inspection targets (markdown export fidelity risk, unsupported AFFiNE block flavours, risky content paths). It clearly distinguishes a fidelity-inspection tool from export tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling export_with_fidelity_report.

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 phrase 'Inspect a document for markdown export fidelity risk' implies a pre-export or diagnostic use case, but it never states when to call this instead of export_with_fidelity_report or export_doc_markdown. No explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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