pdf_read_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the output (local path + context) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The name implies a read operation, but added clarity would be beneficial.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the action and output, and adds a usage tip. There is no redundant information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 context (2 required params, 0% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the primary purpose and usage scenario but lacks parameter explanation and does not reference sibling tools for context, such as where to find image_id.

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 two required parameters (doc_id, image_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters beyond the tool name's implication. It could clarify that image_id is obtained from pdf_list_images, but it does not, leaving the agent without guidance on valid values.

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 returns 'one extracted PDF image local path plus nearby text context,' which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like pdf_list_images (which lists image IDs) and pdf_read_figure (for figures). The verb 'return' and resource 'extracted PDF image' are precisely defined.

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 use-case: 'Use when a multimodal LLM needs to inspect PDF visual evidence.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like pdf_read_figure or pdf_read_table.

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