extract_pdf_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states extraction to a new PDF (non-destructive) and specifies page syntax. However, it does not disclose if input file remains unchanged, permissions needed, or behavior for invalid page ranges.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The action and page specification example are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the main action and page format. However, it omits details about return value or success indication, which would be helpful since there is no output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example for the 'pages' parameter (e.g., '1,3,5-7') and clarifies the purpose of 'output_path' indirectly. This helps an agent beyond raw schema.

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) and resource (pages from a PDF) and clearly states the outcome (new PDF). It distinguishes from siblings like split_pdf and merge_pdf by specifying subset extraction from a single PDF into one new PDF.

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 implies usage for extracting a subset of pages but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like split_pdf or compress_pdf. No when-not-to-use or alternative mention given the large set of sibling tools.

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