pilot_pdf

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses default behavior (A4 format, default output path), return value (confirmation with file path), and error conditions ('Output path must be within ...', 'Page is not HTML'). It does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify browser state, but the mutation is limited to file system write, which is implied.

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 concise, front-loading the main purpose, then providing clear sections for parameters and errors. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though the error list could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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 and one parameter, the description adequately covers usage, return value, and errors. It could mention that the PDF uses default print settings and that the page must be HTML, but those are already implied by the error list. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema provides minimal description for 'output_path' ('Output file path'). The description adds significant value: default value (/tmp/pilot-page.pdf), directory constraint, and implied usage. With 100% schema coverage, the description elevates understanding beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 'Save the current page as a PDF document in A4 format' which specifies the action, resource (current page), and format. This distinguishes it from other pilot tools like pilot_screenshot (image) or pilot_page_text (text extraction).

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 provides use cases: 'Use when the user wants to export the page as a downloadable PDF, save a receipt, or archive a page for offline reading.' It does not, however, mention when not to use or alternative tools, but given the sibling context, the differentiation is clear.

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