proj_export_pdf

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 does disclose the scope (the active document) and that a confirmation dictionary is returned, but says nothing about overwriting an existing file at output_path, whether parent directories are created, error behavior, or whether a save/compile is required first.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the action stated in the first sentence and the parameter/return details following. The Args/Returns scaffolding is slightly ceremonial for a one-parameter tool but costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so the redundant "Returns: Dictionary confirming export" line is not needed and the return value is otherwise covered. What remains missing is context an agent actually needs before calling: whether the active document must be saved or compiled, and what happens if the target file exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter, and it does add real meaning: output_path must be a full path for the resulting PDF file. It stops short of clarifying extension handling, directory creation, or overwrite behavior, so it only partially closes the gap.

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 ("Export the active document to PDF"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling exporters like proj_export_dxf, proj_export_step, and proj_export_image by naming the output format. It does not explicitly say how it differs from those siblings, but the format specificity does most of the disambiguation work.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when a PDF of the currently active document is wanted. There is no statement of prerequisites (e.g. document must be open/active, design compiled or up to date) and no explicit routing away from the other export siblings.

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