pdf_get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval, but the description does not disclose potential errors for invalid page numbers, missing documents, or whether text extraction requires any additional state. It is not misleading, but it adds limited behavioral depth.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loads the action, and communicates the exact scope in a compact way. Every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description is sufficient. The agent knows what it returns, on what resource, and how to target a specific page. No critical information 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters doc_id and page_num are already fully documented. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score for high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('full extracted text for a specific page of an ingested PDF'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like pdf_search, pdf_list_documents, and pdf_delete.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single page's text from an already-ingested document, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like pdf_search. Usage context is inferable rather than directly spelled out.

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