get_pdf_metadata

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 states the tool extracts metadata 'without reading all content', which is useful behavioral context about performance/scope. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like error handling, permission requirements, rate limits, or what specific metadata fields are returned.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place - 'Get metadata information' states the action, 'from a PDF file' specifies the resource, and 'without reading all content' provides important differentiation from sibling tools.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does and its scope. However, it doesn't describe what metadata is returned or potential limitations, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 already fully documents the single 'path' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Get metadata information') and resource ('from a PDF file'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'without reading all content' - implying it's different from read_pdf, read_pdf_page, and search_pdf which likely involve content reading or searching.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('without reading all content'), suggesting it's for lightweight metadata extraction rather than full content processing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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