scan_texts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a key limitation—only works on vector PDFs—and indicates the return format includes pixel and mm positions. However, it omits whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication or permission requirements, error behavior, or pagination. The disclosure is minimal.

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 a single fragmentary sentence with no clear structure or front-loading. While it is short, it is under-specified for the task and lacks the essential parts of a tool definition, such as an action verb and parameter guidance.

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, no annotations, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is far from complete. It provides a vague hint about return values (text with positions) and a vector PDF limitation, but an agent lacks the information needed to invoke the tool correctly, such as what scan_id represents or how to handle non-vector PDFs.

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 for two undocumented parameters. It hints at the 'page' parameter by mentioning 'a PDF page', but gives no details on its default or valid range. The required 'scan_id' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a critical gap.

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 is a noun phrase that restates the tool name ('Text strings embedded in a PDF page') rather than stating an action. It adds some detail about pixel/mm positions and a vector PDF constraint, but never uses a verb to clarify what the tool does (extract, list, return). Compared to siblings like scan_view or scan_px_to_mm, it is unclear whether this retrieves, extracts, or lists text.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned. The agent is left to infer that this tool should be called instead of scan_view or other scan tools, with no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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