pdf_get_metadata

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about permissions, behavior on missing or encrypted files, or whether it fails or returns partial metadata — real gaps for a file-system tool.

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 tightly written sentence with the verb and the returned fields front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 usefully lists the returned fields (page count, size, title, author), which is enough for a simple read tool. However, it omits error and edge-case behavior, leaving the agent without a picture of what happens when the path is invalid or the PDF is encrypted.

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 100% and the single file_path parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb ("Retrieve") and resource ("technical metadata ... of a PDF file") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows this is a metadata-inspection tool rather than a content reader. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling like pdf_read_text to contrast with, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as pdf_read_text or pdf_compare_files. The agent must infer that this is the cheap first step before reading full text.

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