print_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (path and size, not bytes) and the save location (results/ dir), and hints at the underlying mechanism (Chrome's print pipeline). It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting or permission requirements, but for a non-destructive print operation, these are less critical. The transparency is sufficient for an agent to understand what happens.

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 concise sentences that immediately state the action and output location, followed by a rationale for why the tool returns metadata rather than content. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or 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?

For a straightforward tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the key behavior (saves to results, returns path/size) and gives a rationale. It does not describe error cases or preconditions (e.g., active tab requirements), but these are likely implied by the schema and tool context. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it could mention that tabId defaults to the active tab (already in schema) and note that the file is saved for later retrieval.

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 75%, and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions are reasonably clear (e.g., scale range, tabId default, paper units). Since coverage is not high (>80%) but not low (<50%), the description could have compensated for the 25% gap, but it does not. However, the missing parameter descriptions are for boolean flags and simple fields, so the schema's existing descriptions are adequate. The description's silence on parameters does not degrade usability significantly, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 renders the page to PDF via Chrome's print pipeline and saves it to the results directory. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like screenshot (image capture) and get_text (content extraction). The verb 'render' and resource 'PDF' are specific and 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 implies usage by noting that it returns a path and size rather than bytes, and explicitly warns that a PDF is not something to spend context on. This guides the agent toward using it for saving files rather than reading content. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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