Ein BELIEBIGES PDF (base64) analysieren: Seitenzahl/-größen, ausfüllbare Formularfelder (Name, Typ, Label, Optionen), Signaturfelder und Unterschrifts-Positionen. Grundlage zum Ausfüllen fremder PDFs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pdfBase64 | Yes | Das PDF als base64. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It implies a read-only analysis by listing extracted data, which is effective for an inspection tool. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or mention limitations, so it's slightly above average but not perfect.
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 one dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and provides a structured list of output features. Every part contributes value with no redundant wording.
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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main return categories and its role as a precursor to filling. It could specify the exact format of page sizes or field types, but the level of detail is adequate for tool selection.
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 single parameter pdfBase64 is fully described in the schema with 'Das PDF als base64.' and the description repeats the base64 mention without adding new semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.
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 the specific verb 'analysieren' and names the exact resource (PDF as base64), along with concrete output details (page counts/sizes, form fields, signature fields). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fill_pdf or pdf_from_images.
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 states it is the 'Grundlage zum Ausfüllen fremder PDFs', which implies use before filling tools. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: fax, brief, envelope, template, account, etc. There is no noticeable overlap; even fill_pdf and fill_template are clearly differentiated by type of PDF.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., account_balance, fax_confirm, search_templates). No mixing of conventions or irregular styles.
With 33 tools, the server covers multiple subdomains (PDF, fax, postal, signatures, templates). This is on the higher side but still reasonable for a comprehensive document processing server. However, it could benefit from consolidation.
The tool surface covers core document workflows: fill, sign, scan, fax, mail, template exploration, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., PDF merging or splitting), but most user journeys are supported.
