mineru_parse_long

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: it slices into ≤200-page batches, requires total_pages, auto-detects total_pages only for local files on macOS, and returns a batch_id for asynchronous polling. It does not cover failure modes or side effects, but the core execution model is clearly spelled out.

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?

Three dense sentences each serve a distinct purpose: the core use case, the total_pages requirement, and the follow-up/alternative routing. The 200-page condition is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 a complex long-document tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the selection rule, prerequisite information, and end-to-end workflow. It could be more explicit about how slices are derived from total_pages, but it provides enough context for an agent to make a correct first call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for total_pages by explaining how to obtain it and the macOS auto-detection caveat, which goes beyond the schema. It loses a point for referencing 'page_ranges', a concept not present in the input schema.

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 and resource: parse documents longer than 200 pages, which is MinerU's per-file cap. It also distinguishes this tool from mineru_parse by page count, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says to use mineru_parse for files ≤200 pages, and gives the post-call workflow: poll mineru_batch_status, then stitch with mineru_merge_slices. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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