pdf_get_metadata

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what metadata fields are retrieved, helping the agent understand the return payload structure without contradicting the safety 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Get metadata') and follows with a comprehensive list of returned fields. No words are wasted; the structure is immediately scannable.

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 1-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing the specific metadata fields returned (title, author, etc.). It could be improved by indicating the return format (e.g., JSON object), but the field enumeration provides sufficient context for agent decision-making.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute path to the PDF file'), the schema fully documents the single filePath parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but given the high schema coverage, it meets the baseline expectation without penalty.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('metadata from a PDF file') and enumerates exact metadata fields returned (title, author, subject, page count, dates, producer). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like pdf_extract_text (content extraction) and pdf_get_form_fields (form data extraction).

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?

While the description implies usage through specificity—listing document properties rather than text content—it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over pdf_extract_text or pdf_get_form_fields. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative recommendations are provided.

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