Analyze Document Fidelity

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what the inspection covers ('unsupported AFFiNE block flavours and risky content paths'), which goes beyond the safety profile. It does not describe output format or side effects, but those are covered by the output schema and annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes specific detail without any redundant or vague wording. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity, the existing output schema, and thorough annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. Its only shortcoming is the lack of explicit connection to related export tools, which creates a slight ambiguity about the workflow context, but this does not impede basic 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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both docId and workspaceId, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and clearly identifies the resource ('a document') and the exact purpose ('markdown export fidelity risk'). It further specifies the scope by listing 'unsupported AFFiNE block flavours and risky content paths', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_doc_markdown or 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 description implies an inspection use case before export but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as export_with_fidelity_report. It provides no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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