pdf_view

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the page cap and default behaviors for dpi, max_dimension, and quality. It also states that output is images the model can see. However, it does not mention error behavior, what happens with invalid sources, or the exact return format (e.g., URLs vs. embedded images). This is adequate but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 tightly structured: a one-sentence purpose, a caveat on page caps, and a clean argument list. Every sentence earns its place. The front-loaded purpose and explicit parameter guidance make it efficient to scan and act on.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It states images are rendered and viewable, but does not specify how those images are delivered (inline, URLs, base64) or how errors are surfaced. For a rendering tool, that's a small gap. However, the parameter documentation is thorough and covers the main operational details, so it's nearly complete.

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 is 0%, so the description must fully explain all parameters. It does: source (file path or URL), pages (with examples), dpi (range and default), max_dimension (meaning and default), and quality (range and default). Each parameter is given operational meaning beyond the bare type declaration, making it easy for an agent to set values correctly.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Render PDF pages as images the model can see.' It immediately clarifies the tool's purpose as visual rendering and lists concrete use cases (scanned documents, figures, charts, complex layouts) that distinguish it from sibling tools like pdf_read, pdf_ocr, and pdf_info. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 gives clear when-to-use context ('Use for scanned documents, figures, charts, complex layouts, or to verify visual appearance.') and includes a practical batching instruction ('Capped at 8 pages per call to protect context; request ranges in batches.'). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use, but the usage guidance is strong enough to assign a clear selection path.

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