mineru_upload_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that uploads are 'SLOW' and 'may timeout,' and notes the reliability tradeoff versus the alternative. It does not describe the job lifecycle, return value, or next steps, but the performance caveats are meaningful and not present anywhere else.

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 short sentences, with the key caveat front-loaded and the alternative guidance following. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, and the description covers when to use it and its slowness. However, it does not explain what the upload returns, whether it is asynchronous, or how to proceed with mineru_status or mineru_download_results afterward, leaving a gap in end-to-end workflow context.

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 minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond clarifying that files are local paths, which the schema already states as 'absolute file paths.' It does not expand on model, table, formula, formats, or language beyond their schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Upload local files for batch parsing.' It also distinguishes this tool from mineru_batch by clarifying that public-URL parsing belongs to that sibling, so an agent can disambiguate 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?

The description explicitly states when to avoid this tool ('Prefer mineru_batch with public URLs'), names the alternative, and gives the exclusive condition for use: 'Only use this for files not available online.' This is explicit when/when-not guidance with a named sibling.

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