Tool Is Searchable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool only returns a recommended action rather than performing extraction, which is useful, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid paths, or any edge cases around sampling.

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 concise sentence with critical routing information front-loaded. Every clause earns its place, and the fallback instruction '不确定时先调这个' is a useful, compact guideline.

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 lightweight routing tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core decision flow and names both target tools. The only gap is the unexplained sample_pages parameter, which prevents full completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning, but it mentions no parameters. 'path' is somewhat inferable, but 'sample_pages' and its default of 5 are completely unexplained, leaving the agent unsure how sampling affects the check.

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 and resource: it checks whether a PDF has an extractable text layer and returns a recommended action. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the routing entry point between extract_text and ocr_pdf.

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 explicitly names when to use this tool: when uncertain, call it first. It also names the two alternative actions it routes between (extract_text and ocr_pdf), giving clear decision context.

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