wavexis_page_pdf

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

The description mentions side effects like launching a browser, navigating, and writing to output_path, which contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation (true). According to scoring guidelines, a score of 1 is assigned for contradiction, as it may confuse an AI agent about the tool's side effects.

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 concise with two sentences covering purpose and differentiation, plus a clear listing of side effects and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 complex schema and output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects: side effects, return format, and comparison to sibling. It lacks explicit mention of session_id reuse but that is implied. Overall, fairly complete.

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?

The input schema has high description coverage (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only general context about pixel-level control over paper size and margins, not specific parameter details. Thus, no additional value 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 it generates a PDF via the low-level Page.printToPDF CDP method and distinguishes from the sibling tool wavexis_pdf by emphasizing pixel-level control. It explicitly directs users to wavexis_pdf for simpler high-level generation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool versus wavexis_pdf, but does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., session_id or url requirement). However, the schema covers that detail, so the guidance is adequate without being exhaustive.

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