reprocess

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose important traits: it is slow, optional, runs as a background job, and produces real LaTeX. However, it does not state whether results overwrite previous extraction, whether the call is idempotent, or how the agent should learn when the background job completes.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core action and engine are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and background behavior. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 purpose, usage, and basic behavior, and an output schema exists so return values are covered elsewhere. However, for a background job, it should ideally point the agent to a status-checking sibling like document_status, and clarify whether the re-extraction replaces the prior extraction or creates new data. These gaps are material for an agent deciding how to invoke and monitor the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps all three parameters: 'pages' through 'selected pages' and 'specific pages,' 'engine' through 'high-quality engine (Marker),' and 'document' through 'of a document.' It also adds a key usage constraint about not reprocessing a whole book. It does not explain default behavior when pages is null, but it largely covers the parameter meanings.

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 action ('Re-extract selected pages'), a specific resource ('a document'), and a distinctive method (Marker high-quality engine producing real LaTeX). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_pages, which would only fetch or view pages rather than re-run extraction.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: use for 'specific pages whose math came out badly' and 'never for a whole book.' It also labels the tool as 'slow and optional,' which helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool versus cheaper or simpler alternatives.

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