pdf_get_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's behavioral burden is lower. It adds value by listing the specific metadata fields returned (title, author, etc.). This goes beyond annotations by specifying output content, which helps the agent understand what to expect. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists the metadata. Every word earns its place. No fluff.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists the metadata fields returned. However, it could be slightly improved by noting that the tool does not modify the file (already implied by annotations) or handling missing files (but not required). Overall, sufficient.

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 for the single parameter 'filePath' is 100%, with a clear schema description: 'Absolute path to the PDF file'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving metadata from a PDF file, and explicitly lists the specific fields (title, author, subject, page count, dates, producer). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like pdf_extract_text or pdf_get_form_fields.

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 versus alternatives. The description implies it is for read-only metadata retrieval, but does not specify when not to use it (e.g., for text extraction) or mention alternative tools. The sibling tool list provides context but no direct comparison.

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