mineru_parse

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It is sparse, only stating that it returns a task_id, but does not clarify anything about data handling, potential side effects, or whether results are destroyed. The description is too brief to provide adequate transparency for an operation that likely creates a task.

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 efficient at 13 words, front-loaded with the main action and the key return value. It is concise, though it could potentially add a bit more useful detail without significant bloat.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It should explain the purpose of the returned task_id, how to use it with sibling tools (e.g., mineru_status), and any prerequisites, but it only provides a single line. Significant gaps exist for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, including hints like 'Enable OCR' and 'pipeline=fast, vlm=90% accuracy'. The description adds no extra parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's rich coverage.

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 clear verb ('Parse') and resource ('a document URL'), and explains that it returns a task_id for status checking. It differentiates from the status and batch tools by focusing on single URL parsing, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 mention of 'pipeline' and 'vlm' models gives implicit usage context (e.g., when to choose one over the other), but there is no explicit statement about when this tool is preferred over mineru_parse_long for long documents or mineru_batch for multiple URLs. The usage guidance is moderate but not fully explicit.

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