doc_parse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the use of MinerU or PaddleOCR engines and output formats, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, if network access is required, or any error-handling behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the primary function is front-loaded.

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 description covers all parameters, supported input formats, engine options, and output formats. It lacks details on prerequisites or edge cases, but since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed here.

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?

All 7 parameters are described with meanings and examples (e.g., pages '1-20', engine choices, boolean flags). This adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which only lists titles and defaults without 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 opening line clearly states the tool's function: 'Parse documents (PDF/DOCX/PPTX/XLSX/images) into Markdown/JSON'. This specifies a verb, resource types, and output formats, making it distinct from sibling tools like audio_transcribe or video_index.

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 lists supported file formats (PDF/DOCX/PPTX/XLSX/images), giving clear context on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tools cover other media types, making the intended use evident.

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