智睦云打印

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'public URL' (important security context) and implies a side effect (upload). However, it omits critical mutation details: URL persistence, file cleanup policies, size limits, or authentication requirements.

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 13-word sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the action ('Upload'), specifies the input ('local file'), output ('public URL'), and domain context ('print service') with no redundant phrases.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the basic contract (input file → output URL). However, it leaves operational gaps regarding the 'public URL' security implications, longevity, and whether the upload is temporary or persistent.

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% (file_path has no description). The text adds minimal semantic value by implying file_path is a local filesystem path ('local file'), but fails to specify format constraints, absolute vs. relative paths, or supported file types needed to fully compensate for the schema 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 uses specific verb 'Upload' with clear resource 'local file' and distinguishes itself from printer-management siblings by specifying the outcome is 'a public URL that the print service can read.' This clearly positions it as a file preparation step for printing.

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 provides implied usage context by mentioning 'print service can read,' suggesting when to use it (when files need to be made accessible for printing). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus direct_print_document or prerequisites.

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