extract_streaming

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It details the streaming format (NDJSON), event types (classified, page, warning, complete), and ordering. It also mentions OCR re-extraction in standard/high quality. However, it does not cover error handling or authorization, which would improve transparency.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a detailed event format example. While the code block is somewhat lengthy, it provides essential context. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized.

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 streaming tool, the description covers event types, ordering, and use case. It implicitly defines the output schema through examples. It does not cover error scenarios or timeouts, but given the tool's nature, it is largely 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions quality modes but does not explicitly explain the file_path parameter or possible quality values beyond 'standard/high'. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema's names and defaults.

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 streams extraction events for a PDF as NDJSON, with a specific use case for large documents. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like extract_structured, which would have earned a 5.

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 explicitly recommends use for large documents (100+ pages) where waiting is impractical, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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