delegate_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'locally' (suggesting no network call) and 'returns compact findings with page evidence', but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects (e.g., caching). The term 'delegate' is ambiguous.

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, short sentence with essential front-loaded information. Every word contributes to purpose and outcome. No filler or repetition.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits return format, side effects, error conditions, and parameter meanings. The tool appears non-trivial (analysis with caching) but the description does not enable proper invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It mentions 'extract, chunk, and analyze' but fails to map parameters (path, objective, persistent, output_mode, force_refresh) to these actions. The agent cannot infer how to set 'output_mode' to get different results or what 'persistent' means.

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 ('Extract, chunk, and analyze') and resource ('PDF locally'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delegate_task or delegate_batch by focusing on PDF analysis, though it could be more explicit about how it differs from delegate_file.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or context for choosing this tool over siblings like delegate_file or delegate_task. The agent receives no help in deciding when to invoke this tool vs others.

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