Zotero Get Page Layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that detection is geometric, that boxes may exclude text labels or unruled table headers, and that confidence reflects caption matching—not box completeness. It also states read-only nature and web/local API support, giving a complete behavioral picture.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage directive, return contents, behavioral caveats, parameter clarifications, scope, read-only note, and an example. Information is front-loaded; the most critical 'ALWAYS call' instruction appears early. No fluff 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 tool with two parameters, an output schema, and important interaction with sibling tools, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, how to use it correctly, what pitfalls exist (attachment key type, geometric detection), and a concrete usage example. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without further research.

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 100% and both parameters have descriptions, but the tool description adds practical nuance: attachment_key is clarified as NOT the parent item key (directing to zotero_get_item_children) and page is emphasized as 1-indexed. The example further disambiguates usage, going beyond the basic 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 states a specific action ('Detect candidate figure/table regions') and resource ('on a PDF page') and immediately clarifies its role in the annotation workflow. It names the sibling it feeds into (zotero_create_annotation), making the distinction from other tools explicit.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'ALWAYS call this before zotero_create_annotation's area mode unless exact coordinates are already known', provides an alternative for finding attachment keys (zotero_get_item_children), and limits scope to PDFs (excluding EPUB). Clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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