Tool Extract Attachments

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

No annotations are provided so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core read/write action (extracting files) but fails to mention side effects such as whether out_dir is created if missing, what happens to existing files, or what the tool returns. No behavioral detail beyond the basic operation is given.

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?

One single, focused sentence with no filler. The verb and key nouns are front-loaded, and every word contributes to meaning. It is concise without being under-spectified to the point of confusion.

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?

Given a simple tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description still omits important context: when to prefer this sibling, what the default output behavior is, and any side effects of writing files. The output schema exists but does not offset missing behavioral or usage context. An agent could call it, but not confidently in all cases.

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 0% with no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does tie 'PDF' to the path parameter and '指定目录' to out_dir, giving a basic mapping. However, it does not clarify that out_dir is optional with a null default or what happens when out_dir is null, leaving a notable gap.

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 (抽取/extract), a precise resource (PDF 内嵌附件文件/embedded PDF attachment files), and a destination (指定目录/specified directory). It also distinguishes itself from sibling extraction tools like tool_extract_text and tool_extract_images by targeting attachments specifically.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, and there is no mention of exclusions or conditions. The sibling list contains several extraction tools, but the description does not tell the agent which situations call for attachments extraction versus text or image extraction.

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