zotero_get_page_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It details the geometric nature of detection ('boxes cover the graphical core... text labels inside figures or unruled table headers may fall outside'), explains confidence semantics ('reflects caption matching, not box completeness'), and notes the attachment_key distinction ('NOT the parent item key'). It also states it is read-only and works in both local and web API modes, fully covering the tool's operational behavior.

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 information-dense yet well-organized, with each sentence serving a purpose: purpose, usage, output contents, limitations, parameter clarification, scope, and example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage directive, and every element earns its place without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (detection, output format, limitations) and the presence of an output schema, the description still adds value by explaining the returned fields (bounding box, source, caption, confidence, ready-to-paste call) and clarifying edge cases. It covers scope, read-only behavior, and parameter pitfalls. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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%, but the description adds critical semantic clarification: 'attachment_key: PDF attachment key — NOT the parent item key (use zotero_get_item_children to find attachments)' and 'page: 1-indexed page number (page 1 is the first page)'. These go beyond the schema's generic descriptions, preventing common mistakes, and a concrete example is provided. This adds significant value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Detect candidate figure/table regions on a PDF page and return their normalized bounding boxes, so area annotations can be placed on detected content instead of guessed positions.' This specifies a specific verb (detect), resource (PDF page), and intended use, distinguishing it from sibling tools like zotero_create_annotation and zotero_read_pdf_pages.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'ALWAYS call this before zotero_create_annotation's area mode unless exact coordinates are already known.' It also provides scope limitations ('PDFs only — EPUB attachments are NOT supported') and read-only behavior. This gives clear guidance on when to invoke and when not, referencing the dependent sibling tool.

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