pdf_list_figures

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'with diagnostics' without elaboration, and does not describe ordering, return format, or any side effects. The output schema may cover return values, but the description lacks behavioral depth.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy: first states core functionality and optional scoping, second provides usage recommendation. Every word adds value.

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 has an output schema, return values need not be detailed. However, with 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should elaborate on all parameters. It only addresses node_id. Additionally, prerequisites (e.g., document ingestion) are not mentioned, leaving gaps for new users.

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 should compensate. It only clarifies the 'node_id' parameter (scoping to an outline node). The 'limit' and 'doc_id' parameters are not explained, leaving ambiguity.

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 lists Docling-detected PDF figures with diagnostics, and optionally scopes to an outline node. It differentiates from siblings like pdf_list_images by specifying 'Docling-detected' and 'diagnostics', and explicitly suggests sequencing before pdf_read_figure.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use for figure-centric reading before pdf_read_figure.' This implies sequential workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives.

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