Extract embedded images

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

Without annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavior. It discloses unsupported pixel layouts are skipped and reported. However, it doesn't mention if the output directory must exist, if files are overwritten, or if a return value is provided. Still, the key behavioral trait is covered.

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 action, no unnecessary words. Each 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on return values (e.g., list of extracted files or status). The agent might need to infer success from side effects.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about PNG output and skipped layouts but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('pull embedded images'), the resource ('PDF'), the output format ('PNG'), and handling of unsupported layouts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like extract_text and to_images.

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 when to use this tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that extract_text is for text extraction or to_images for page-level images.

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