post_process

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 clearly discloses that original files may be deleted via delete_original_file, explains the processing outputs, and describes the return status and paths. It does not mention overwrite behavior or default deletion, but it is substantially transparent for a processing tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections, front-loads the purpose, and gives parameter details in an easy-to-scan format. The return section is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists, but it is concise and informative without excessive verbosity.

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's moderate complexity, the description covers all parameters, allowed values, output format examples, and return fields. It lacks explicit usage boundaries and default deletion behavior, but with an output schema available and detailed parameter semantics, it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides meaning for every parameter: album_id is defined, process_type has explicit allowed values, and params is detailed with a concrete dir_rule example and the delete_original_file boolean semantics. This far exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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: post-processing already downloaded albums into Zip, PDF, or long images. This clearly distinguishes it from download-related siblings like download_album and download_photo, and the output formats make the tool's purpose concrete.

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 '已下载的本子' implies the tool should be used after an album has been downloaded, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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