pdf-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, what format the metadata is returned in (JSON, string, object?), or what happens if the file is not found or invalid.

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 efficiently structured with a clear single-sentence purpose followed by Args documentation. No wasted words, though the 'Args:' section is slightly informal compared to natural language descriptions.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics but could improve by hinting at what metadata fields are returned (e.g., page count, author, creation date) to help agents confirm this is the correct tool for their needs.

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 (only 'title': 'Filename' in schema), the description compensates by documenting the parameter: 'Path to a PDF file.' This clarifies it expects a file path string and implies the file type constraint, adding essential meaning missing from the structured 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PDF file') with clear scope ('metadata and basic info'). It implicitly distinguishes from content-extraction siblings (get_page_text, get_page_image) by focusing on file-level properties rather than page content, though it doesn't explicitly name the siblings.

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 provides implied usage through the scope ('metadata' vs content), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_page_text for text extraction or search_text for searching. No 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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