ingest_pdfs

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

The description notes idempotency and the force parameter, offering some behavioral insight. However, it lacks details on side effects or requirements beyond what the schema provides. With no annotations, more explicit disclosure would be beneficial.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words. Slightly short but effective.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main action and idempotency, but omits output location. With schema covering parameters, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The main description adds some context (idempotency), but the schema already thoroughly documents each parameter. No significant additional value beyond the 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 clearly states 'Render every materials/**/*.pdf to markdown' using a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like grade_pdf or parse_exam_radar_export.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for PDF ingestion) and mentions idempotency, providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct.

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