mifactory-pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the output format ('Retorna base64') and cost implication ('Cuesta 5 créditos'). However, it doesn't cover other important behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: three short sentences that each add value (conversion function, output format, cost). There's zero waste or redundancy. It efficiently communicates key information 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?

Given the tool's complexity (conversion operation with cost implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose, output format, and cost, but lacks details on error cases, performance, or integration context. For a tool with behavioral implications and sibling alternatives, it should provide more complete guidance.

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 ('html' and 'options') thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies conversion functionality but doesn't explain parameter usage, formats, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Convierte HTML a PDF' (converts HTML to PDF), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'markdown_to_pdf' by specifying the input format as HTML. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from other PDF-related tools beyond the input type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'markdown_to_pdf' or 'invoice_pdf'. It mentions a cost ('Cuesta 5 créditos'), which could imply usage considerations, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost ('8 créditos'), which hints at resource usage or potential limitations, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool that likely creates a PDF file, this lack of detail is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence and adds cost information in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a PDF file, a download link, or an error message), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like side effects or prerequisites. For a tool that generates a PDF invoice, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full context and usage.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (e.g., 'items', 'client', 'company'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'items' or the format of 'due_date'. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to heavily.

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 tool's purpose: 'Genera una factura profesional en PDF' (Generates a professional invoice in PDF). It specifies the verb ('genera') and resource ('factura profesional en PDF'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'report_pdf' or 'html_to_pdf', which might also generate PDFs but for different purposes.

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 minimal usage guidance: it mentions a cost ('Cuesta 8 créditos'), which implies resource consumption but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'html_to_pdf' or 'markdown_to_pdf'. There's no explicit context for when this tool is appropriate or when to choose other tools, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: it returns base64 output and costs 5 credits, which are behavioral traits not in the schema. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance, or other operational aspects, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core function in the first sentence and adding key behavioral details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without waste, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (conversion with cost), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic function and key behavioral traits (base64 return, cost), but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with siblings, leaving room for improvement in contextual coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (title and markdown) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 tool's purpose: converting Markdown to PDF. It specifies the verb 'Convierte' (converts) and the resource 'Markdown a PDF', making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like html_to_pdf or report_pdf, which also generate PDFs from different inputs, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a cost of 5 credits, which could imply a usage consideration, but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like html_to_pdf or invoice_pdf. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it offers minimal usage guidance.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the cost ('cuesta 10 créditos'), which is valuable behavioral context not in the schema. However, it doesn't describe what 'genera' entails operationally—whether it's a synchronous or asynchronous process, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise—just two short sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context (cost). There's zero waste or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and cost information but lacks completeness for a PDF generation tool. It doesn't explain what the output contains, how errors are handled, or performance characteristics. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context remains incomplete for proper agent understanding.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the structure of 'sections', format expectations for 'date', or relationships between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Genera un reporte profesional en PDF' (Generates a professional PDF report). It specifies the verb ('genera') and resource ('reporte profesional en PDF'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'html_to_pdf' or 'markdown_to_pdf' that also generate PDFs from different inputs. The mention of 'cuesta 10 créditos' (costs 10 credits) adds useful context but doesn't clarify functional differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'html_to_pdf', 'invoice_pdf', or 'markdown_to_pdf', nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The cost information ('cuesta 10 créditos') hints at resource considerations but doesn't constitute usage guidance for tool selection.

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