list_pdfs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's read-only nature (implied by 'Find' and returns data) and output format ('Returns name, path, pages'), but lacks details on error handling, performance limits, or permissions required for directory access. It adds value beyond the schema by explaining the return structure and integration with 'read_pdf'.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the tool's function, providing a parameter example, and explaining the output and integration. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (searching files with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and output structure, but lacks details on error cases or performance constraints (e.g., large directories). The integration hint with 'read_pdf' enhances context, though some behavioral gaps remain.

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 the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only mentioning 'name_pattern' with an example ('e.g., '*report*''), which is already covered in the schema description. No additional parameter insights are provided, meeting the baseline for high schema 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Find PDF files'), target resource ('in a directory'), and scope ('Returns name, path, pages for each PDF'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'read_pdf' for a different purpose, avoiding overlap.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Find PDF files in a directory') and when to use an alternative ('Use the returned 'path' directly with read_pdf'), clearly differentiating from the sibling 'read_pdf' tool. It also includes a practical example ('e.g., '*report*'') to illustrate usage context.

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