print_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the save location (task results/ dir) and return shape (path and size, not bytes), which is genuinely non-obvious. It says nothing about failure modes, whether it waits for rendering, or permissions, so it is only partially transparent.

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 the action and destination, and the rationale for returning only metadata is compact. The trailing 'a PDF is not something to spend context on' is mildly editorial but justifies the return-value decision.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does address the single most important unknown (what comes back and where it lands). However, it leaves error/blocking behavior and several parameters unexplained, so it is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (scale range, pageRanges example, paper units, tabId default are all documented) with 8 optional parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented options like landscape or preferCSSPageSize. Baseline 3 for high 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Render the page to PDF') and adds the mechanism ('through Chrome's own print pipeline') plus the destination (results/ dir). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling 'screenshot' tool without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you reach for this when you want a PDF artifact of the current page rather than markdown, HTML, or an image. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like 'screenshot' or 'read_as_markdown'.

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