Tool List Fonts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states that the tool lists fonts and their embedding status, and it adds a useful real-world implication. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly say so.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and each clause contributes information. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple one-parameter, read-oriented tool with an output schema, the description covers the central purpose and the user-facing consequence well. The main gap is the undocumented path parameter, but the sibling context and the nature of the task make the intended input reasonably inferable.

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 schema has one required parameter, path, with 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It gives no guidance that path should point to a PDF, no format details, and no example, so an agent gets no additional parameter meaning from the description.

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 uses a specific verb and object ('列出字体与嵌入状态' — list fonts and embedding status), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from every sibling tool in the list, none of which covers font inspection.

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 provides a clear use context: a 'font health check' to detect embedding issues. The added consequence — unembedded fonts may cause missing characters when viewing or printing across devices — tells an agent when this tool is valuable, though it does not name alternatives or exclusions.

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