EasyPDF

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (modifies), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as file output details or side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not enrich them, so a neutral score is appropriate.

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 sentence with zero waste, directly stating the action and target. It is front-loaded and earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with full schema documentation and an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It doesn't explain return behavior, but the output schema covers that. Minor gap: no mention of whether it creates a new file or modifies in-place, but annotations imply modification and the operation is straightforward.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter (position lists options, start_number explains default). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, and the schema already fully documents them, so baseline 3 is justified.

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 'Add page numbers to a PDF' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like compress_pdf, extract_pages, etc., which have distinct purposes. The intent is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. However, the name and description make the usage context obvious, so usage is implied rather than explicitly stated. It lacks any 'when not to use' or alternative references.

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

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds a small behavioral note about maintaining readability, but it does not explain whether the original file is preserved, whether a new compressed file is returned, or how compression affects quality beyond the schema's quality parameter.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. There is no wasted wording, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool with a complete input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly communicates the core function, though it could slightly improve by mentioning whether the original file is modified or a new compressed file is produced.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both the 'file' object and the 'quality' parameter. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'compress' and names the resource 'PDF', clearly distinguishing this tool from the sibling tools like extract_pages, merge_pdfs, and rotate_pdf. It also states the intended outcome: reducing file size while preserving readability.

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 implies the tool should be used when a PDF's file size needs to be reduced while keeping it readable, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Since all sibling tools perform different PDF operations, the usage context is reasonably clear but not fully explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=falseikuha. The description adds that a new PDF is produced (rather than modifying the source) and that page numbers are 1-indexed, which are meaningful behavioral details beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the operation, the resource, and the key indexing constraint. It is front-loaded with the primary action 'Extract specific pages from a PDF' and wastes no words.

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 tool with only two parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: subset selection, new PDF output, and 1-indexing. It omits only explicit usage distinctions from sibling tools, which is a minor gap.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (file and page_numbers) at 100% coverage. The tool description adds the crucial '1-indexed' detail for page_numbers and clarifies the operation's intent, which complements the schema instead of repeating it.

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 clearly states the verb 'Extract', the resource 'specific pages from a PDF', and the output 'a new PDF'. It differentiates itself from siblings like split_pdf or merge_pdfs by emphasizing 'specific pages' and the resulting single new PDF, which an agent can use to select the right tool.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a subset of pages is needed from an existing PDF) but does not explicitly contrast it with split_pdf, merge_pdfs, or other alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and side-effect expectations are covered. The description adds only the ordering behavior and does not discuss output creation or file handling, but no contradiction exists and the schema covers input constraints.

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 sentence of about 13 words, front-loaded with the action and object. Every word contributes, and it is appropriately sized for a low-complexity tool.

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?

The tool has only one parameter with full schema documentation, annotations cover the behavioral profile, and an output schema exists. The description plus schema together provide enough for correct invocation; only minimal behavioral elaboration is delegated to the output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'in the given order' reinforces the files array ordering already documented in the schema ('in the order to merge them'), but adds no new parameter-level semantics.

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 verb 'Merge' with the resource 'PDF files' and specifies the result 'a single document' plus the ordering constraint 'in the given order.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like split_pdf, rotate_pdf, and extract_pages.

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?

'Merge several PDF files' implicitly tells an agent this is for combining multiple PDFs, and 'given order' clarifies the intended use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and wording make the selection obvious.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the AES-256 encryption detail, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens to the original file, whether the output is a new file, or whether the password is returned in the response.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and it includes the encryption detail without any waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has a simple two-parameter schema with 100% coverage and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The only minor gap is that it does not mention whether the original file is modified or a new protected file is produced, but the annotations and schema cover most of what an agent needs.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to since the schema is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Protect'), a resource ('a PDF'), and the method ('password (AES-256 encryption)'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like unlock_pdf and compress_pdf, so an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 implies the tool is for adding password protection to a PDF, and the sibling list includes unlock_pdf, which suggests the alternative for removing protection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations (e.g., only works on PDFs, password strength requirements).

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that rotation applies to all or selected pages, and the schema clarifies angle values. It doesn't add much behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it doesn't contradict them either.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. It earns its place without redundancy, though it could add a bit more context about output or usage.

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?

The tool has an output schema and 100% schema coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it doesn't mention any prerequisites (e.g., file must be a valid PDF) or edge cases (e.g., invalid page numbers), which could be useful for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema's descriptions are sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('rotate') and resource ('a PDF'), and specifies the scope ('all pages, or selected pages'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like extract_pages or split_pdf by focusing on rotation, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies usage context: use when pages need to be rotated, with optional page selection. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list and the description's scope make the intended use reasonably clear.

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

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

The description only states the action and output, adding no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already provide. It does not mention that new files are created while the original is left intact, whether processing is synchronous, or any permission requirements. Since annotations are present but the description adds no extra context, this is a weak score.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with full schema descriptions, an output schema, and safety annotations, the minimal description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it does not clarify edge cases like behavior when pages_per_file exceeds total pages or how the tool relates to extract_pages, leaving some ambiguity in 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 input schema already has 100% description coverage, including a clear description for pages_per_file ('default 1: one file per page'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('split') and resource ('PDF'), clearly stating that the output is several smaller PDFs. This differentiates it from siblings like compress or rotate, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from extract_pages, which could also produce smaller PDFs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention extract_pages, merge_pdfs, or any other sibling, nor does it provide context like 'use this to divide a PDF into chunks' or 'if you need specific page ranges, use extract_pages instead.'

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the ownership qualifier ('you own') but doesn't disclose what happens to the original file, whether a new file is returned, or whether the password is required for both user and owner passwords. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only missing context is what the output looks like (e.g., a new unlocked PDF file), but the output schema likely covers that. The ownership qualifier adds useful context. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (file is the protected PDF, password is its current password). Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Remove') with a clear resource ('password protection from a PDF you own'), and the title reinforces it. It distinguishes itself from siblings like protect_pdf (which adds a password) and compress_pdf/extract_pages (which perform other PDF operations).

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 phrase 'you own' implies the user should only unlock PDFs they have rights to, which is a usage condition. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling list makes the contrast clear (e.g., protect_pdf is the inverse operation).

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