validate_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the purpose ('verify whether the document can be converted') but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean or error list), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a validation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence in Chinese, containing no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core action and object.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description lacks essential context for a validation tool: it does not state what the result is (e.g., boolean, error messages) or how to interpret the outcome. Without an output schema or annotations, the description should have provided at least a brief note on return behavior, which it omits.

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 already provides a 100% description coverage for the single parameter filePath ('文件路径'). The description adds only minimal context by implying that filePath refers to the document to be validated, but it doesn't elaborate on accepted formats or path handling. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.

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 "验证文档是否可以转换" clearly states the tool's function: validating whether a document can be converted. This specific action distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_document (performs conversion) and get_supported_formats (lists formats). The verb "validate" is precise and the resource "document" is obvious.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It doesn't say 'use this before converting' or note any prerequisites. The usage is only implied by the tool's name/description, but no direct comparison to alternatives is provided.

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