import_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses background extraction, immediate job-id return, cache-hit idempotency, no reprocessing, and zero cost for duplicates. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value (async behavior, polling, cache semantics, cost implications). No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the async workflow, polling requirement, idempotency, and cost trade-offs—all essential for correct invocation. Parameter meanings are missing, but that is a separate dimension; for the tool's behavior, the description is thorough and leaves no critical ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain either 'path' or 'force'. The purpose of 'force' is left entirely to the schema, and even 'path' is not contextualized beyond being a file path. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Add a PDF to the library' with a clear verb and resource, and immediately clarifies the cache-hit behavior that distinguishes it from the sibling get/search/reprocess tools. It fully defines the tool's role in the library workflow.

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 explicit operational guidance: poll document_status until complete, and warns against calling twice due to cache hits. It does not name alternative tools, but the context makes the intended usage clear and self-contained.

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