brand_extract_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details that it writes to core-identity.yaml and source-catalog.json, uses text extraction and pattern matching, and that guideline source outranks web extraction. It could be more explicit about side effects like overwriting, but covers key behaviors well.

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 paragraph with 9 sentences, starting with the main action. It is fairly concise but could be more structured (e.g., using separate sections or bullet points for purpose, usage, and exclusions). Most sentences add value, though some repetition of writing to files could be streamlined.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains what is extracted and where it is stored. It covers the tool's purpose, input, processing, output files, source priority, and usage order. Missing details on error handling or performance, but overall complete for a specialized extraction tool.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema mentions (e.g., 'Accepts a local file path'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 it extracts brand colors, typography, spacing, and guideline rules from a PDF. It uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('PDF brand guidelines'), and distinguishes from siblings like brand_extract_web and brand_extract_figma by explicitly stating what it is NOT for.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: when the user has a PDF brand guidelines document. It indicates this is the most accurate source and provides ordering instructions: use after brand_extract_web, run brand_resolve_conflicts afterward. It also states not for website or Figma extraction, directing to other tools.

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