1pdf

by WendongAI

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.4.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as nup_pdf vs combine_single_page, add_header_footer vs add_stamps vs watermark, and change_permissions vs remove_restrictions. The boundaries between these tools are unclear, making it difficult for an agent to select the correct one.
Naming Consistency2/5
While conversion tools follow a clear *_to_pdf/pdf_to_* pattern, the rest mix verb-first (merge, rotate), noun phrases (pdf_reader, system_status), and prefixed names (ai_summarize, ocg_manager). This inconsistent naming makes it hard to predict tool names.
Tool Count1/5
With 98 tools, this server is far beyond any reasonable scope. Even for a comprehensive PDF utility, the sheer number is overwhelming and exceeds typical MCP server sizes by a large margin.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers virtually every common PDF operation: conversions from/to PDF, page manipulation, text extraction, security, metadata, forms, annotations, and AI-assisted features. There are no significant gaps in the domain.
Average 3.5/5 across 95 of 98 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 13 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior but not the operational details. It doesn't specify whether the output replaces the input, whether it creates new files, what image format is produced, or any side effects. With no annotations, this minimal description leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is concise, but the 'and back' phrase is confusing and lacks necessary clarity. It earns a middle score because while brevity is positive, the content is slightly misleading and under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and side effects. It does neither. The ambiguity around 'and back' and lack of details about output format or behavior makes the tool underdocumented for a conversion task among many similar siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, providing clear descriptions for dpi, file, and output_name. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the schema carries the full burden, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('rasterizes vector content') but the phrase 'and back' is ambiguous, suggesting bidirectional conversion that contradicts the tool's name. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like pdf_to_png or pdf_to_jpg, which also convert PDF pages to images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling conversion tools. The description implies a use case (rasterizing vector content) but does not state alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 indicates a mutation (adding a stamp) but does not mention whether the original file is modified, whether an output file is created, or any permission or safety considerations. This is minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain behavior, defaults, output naming, or any side effects, leaving the agent without essential context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight nuance with 'specific position', but this is already implied by the 'position' parameter in the schema. It does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('a text stamp to a PDF'), and mentions a specific position. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'watermark' or 'page_number', so it loses a point for lacking sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as watermark or page_number. It only states what the tool does without any context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to fall back on, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the high-level action without disclosing behavioral aspects such as whether it uses AI, requires OCR, handles scanned PDFs, or what output format is returned. This is a significant gap for an extraction tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the core function without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should specify what the returned structured data looks like or any prerequisites. It does not mention return format, performance characteristics, or limitations, making it incomplete for a tool that presumably returns a complex structured result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the single parameter 'file' as 'Absolute path to the PDF file', providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Extract' and the resource 'structured information (entities, dates, numbers) from a PDF', making the tool's purpose specific and understandable. It helps differentiate from siblings like extract_tables or get_page_text by naming entity/date/number extraction, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for structured information extraction but does not mention exclusions, use cases, or alternative tools like get_page_text or extract_tables, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the high-level action but does not mention whether it creates a new file, whether the original is modified, output defaults, or side effects. The schema hints at output_name, but the description itself is sparse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but perhaps too brief given the tool's complexity, earning a 4 rather than 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It lacks detail on output behavior, defaults, and edge cases, and does not help differentiate among many similar sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning 'grid layout,' which loosely relates to rows/cols. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (combine) and the resource (all pages onto a single page) with a grid layout. It is specific enough to be understood, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like nup_pdf or grid_combine.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as grid_combine, nup_pdf, or posterize_pdf. It provides no context, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to clarify whether the provided bookmarks append to or completely replace the existing bookmark tree, and it does not mention that the output is written to a new file (per the 'output_name' schema parameter). This ambiguity is significant for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is well-structured and immediately readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested bookmark objects, optional output naming), the description is too thin. It omits crucial behavioral details such as whether existing bookmarks are replaced or appended, and how the output file is handled. No output schema exists to compensate for this missing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides complete descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including the 1-based page index and the default for output_name. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add or replace'), the resource ('bookmarks'), and the target ('in a PDF'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'table_of_contents' (which extracts a TOC) by indicating a write operation, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios for adding vs. replacing bookmarks, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison. The only sibling that could be confused is 'table_of_contents', but no explicit distinction is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and does not mention whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, whether the operation is destructive, or if any permissions are required. The output_name parameter suggests output behavior, but this is not explained in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no superfluous content. It directly conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse for a tool that modifies PDF files. It does not mention whether a new file is created, how output_name works, what happens to the original file, or any side effects. Given the complexity of form-filling (field matching, output handling), the description leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter details, but since the schema already documents all three parameters clearly, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: filling form fields in a PDF with provided values. It uses a specific verb ('fill') and resource ('form fields in a PDF'), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like form_creator, but the action is distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. It does not explain how to handle situations like missing fields or incorrect field names, leaving the usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and says nothing about output behavior, file handling, page distribution for varying page counts, or any side effects. The agent is left uninformed about important operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of unnecessary filler, effectively communicating the tool's essence in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the lack of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as default grid behavior, handling of uneven PDF page counts, output file naming specifics, and how this tool differs from similar ones. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already define files, cols, and output_name. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core function: combining multiple PDFs into a grid layout on single pages. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the concept of a grid is distinct from simple merging, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like nup_pdf or combine_single_page.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With several overlapping sibling tools (e.g., nup_pdf, combine_single_page, merge), the description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must explain behavioral traits, but it only states the core action. It does not disclose whether the original file is modified, how the output is named, page ordering, or any limitations—critical context for PDF operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff; every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose. It is exactly as concise as it can be for the information it provides.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even for a simple tool, the description is incomplete: it omits whether a new file is created, what layout/orientation is used, and which scenarios call for nup_pdf over sibling imposition tools. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (n, file, output_name) already documented. The description’s mention of 'per sheet' adds slight context to n but does not meaningfully extend beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Place N pages per sheet') with illustrative examples (2-up, 4-up), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is sufficiently distinct from similar imposition tools like pdf_booklet or posterize, though it does not explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use nup_pdf versus related tools such as grid_combine, pdf_booklet, or posterize_pdf. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be preferred or avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full weight for behavioral disclosure. It only states conversion without mentioning side effects like file overwriting, output creation behavior, or whether validation is performed. The 'validate' parameter hints at an optional check, but the description does not elaborate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name, adding minimal value. It is appropriately sized but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values and side effects. It does not mention output file naming, whether the original file is preserved, or how validation results are returned. Given the tool's parameter complexity, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% — all four parameters have descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the exact action ('Convert') and resource ('PDF to PDF/A archival format'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling conversion tools like pdf_to_tiff or pdf_to_zip. The target format is explicitly named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as indicating it is for archival or long-term preservation. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only states the high-level action. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies the file in place or creates a new output, what 'access restrictions' includes (e.g., password protection), or whether the operation is irreversible. The schema's output_name hint is not referenced in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, focused sentence perfectly conveys the core function. It is front-loaded and free of filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations and a minimal description, yet it may have side effects (e.g., removing encryption) and an alternative tool. It does not specify the return type or any operational caveats, leaving the agent without enough context to confidently invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema describes both parameters fully (100% coverage), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as how output_name interacts with defaults or whether file must be an absolute path (already in schema).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('remove') and the target ('all access restrictions') with the resource ('PDF'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from similar tools like change_permissions by specifying a complete removal rather than modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as change_permissions or encrypt/decrypt. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-destructive read operation ('Extract') and reveals output behavior ('returns key text'), but it does not disclose limits (e.g., scanned files), return format details, or whether it preserves formatting. This is minimally informative but not contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and outcome. It avoids fluff and is appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more explicit about the summary nature.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large sibling set with overlapping PDF-text tools, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not clarify the relationship to get_page_text, ai_extract_info, or ai_chat_with_pdf, nor does it explain how the summary is structured (e.g., length, format). The absence of an output schema makes this gap more significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter ('file') described as 'Absolute path to the PDF file'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Extract and summarize the text content of a PDF') and clarifies the output as 'returns key text'. This distinguishes it from extraction-only siblings like get_page_text and interactive tools like ai_chat_with_pdf, though 'extract and summarize' could be more precise about whether it returns a full extraction or a true summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like get_page_text, pdf_search, ai_extract_info, and ai_chat_with_pdf serve related but distinct purposes, yet the description does not mention any trade-offs, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning whether the original PDF is preserved, that the output is a PDF file, or default naming behavior for output_name. This leaves the agent to infer critical side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the verb 'Extract' and stating the key object. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose. The minimalism earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, an output schema, and the large number of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, whether the original file is modified, or any return value. It also lacks contextual guidance to distinguish extraction from similar page-manipulation tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes all three parameters (file, pages, output_name) with clear descriptions, including an example for the 'pages' format. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics, and the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is specific and clear: it states the action (extract), the target resource (specific pages from a PDF), and the output (a new document). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'split' (which creates multiple documents), 'delete_pages' (which modifies the existing PDF), and 'divide_pages', making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'split', 'divide_pages', 'delete_pages', or 'combine_single_page'. It lacks contextual cues like 'Use this when you need a subset of pages in a single PDF' or exclusions for other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that page numbers are added, but does not explain whether the original file is modified, whether a new file is created, or any other side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely writes to a PDF.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description plus the rich schema provides enough to understand the primary function and available parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks important context about output file behavior and does not position the tool relative to similar numbering/stamping tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all five parameters clearly documented. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, such as format examples or positional defaults, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: adding page numbers to each page of a PDF. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool bates_number_pdf, which also adds numbers, but 'page numbers' is distinct enough for most intents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bates_number_pdf, watermark, or add_header_footer. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description offers no behavioral details such as output file naming, handling of multiple pages, default DPI, or behavior when output_dir is omitted. It only states the basic functionality without disclosing important behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is not verbose and earns its place, though its brevity leaves out crucial context that would require expansion.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the output format specifics (e.g., one PNG per page, file naming) or provide usage context relative to the many sibling converters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it also does not clarify any parameter interplay or output behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Render' and clearly states the input (PDF pages) and output format (PNG images), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pdf_to_jpg or pdf_to_tiff. It is a clear, specific verb+resource+output statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative conversion tools. It neither mentions exclusions nor recommends scenarios where this tool is preferred over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the conversion itself. It does not mention output path handling, error cases, file format expectations, or any side effects. The schema's file parameter description is also misleading ('Absolute path to the PDF file') and the tool description does not clarify that the file is the RTF source.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that is efficient and easy to parse. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain the output_name parameter beyond what the schema already says, and the incorrect file parameter description in the schema is not corrected. The overall context is clear enough for an agent to act, but missing details could lead to misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds limited meaning by implying that 'file' is the RTF input, but it does not explicitly map parameters or clarify the misleading schema description for 'file'. No additional parameter-level detail is provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: converting an RTF document into a PDF. It uses a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('RTF document') and distinguishes it from sibling converters like txt_to_pdf or markdown_to_pdf.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, input validation, or scenarios where RTF conversion is preferred over other formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the original PDF is modified, if a new file is created, whether attachments are embedded in a specific format, or any required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the stated purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that modifies PDFs and has no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the default output behavior, the relationship between the input file and output file, or any side effects. The schema helps with parameter meaning, but the description fails to provide the broader operational context needed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (file, attachments, output_name) described. The tool description itself adds no additional detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Attach files to a PDF as embedded attachments' clearly identifies the action (attach) and the resource (PDF), and specifies the nature of the data (files). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools such as extract_attachments and edit_attachments by focusing on the addition of attachments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_attachments or extract_attachments. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states the core action. It does not mention whether the original file is modified in-place or if a new file is created, nor does it describe defaults like appending to the end when no position is specified. The absence of such critical side-effect information is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is concise without unnecessary words, and the placement of 'at a specific position' front-loads the key scoping detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too minimal for a tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It lacks essential behavioral context such as whether the operation creates a new file or overwrites the original, and it does not explain the default behavior when 'position' or 'count' are omitted. The schema supplies parameter details, but the description fails to provide the broader operational context needed for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. The description itself adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, but since the schema already handles the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Insert blank pages') and the target resource ('a PDF') with a specific scope ('at a specific position'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_pages' or 'extract_pages' by focusing on adding blank pages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no explicit comparison to sibling tools or context about when this operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool modifies PDFs (or creates a new file via output_name), whether the original is preserved, or any destructive implications. For a file-processing tool, this is a significant omission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and avoids redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the purpose, though the lack of detail is reflected in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it modifies the original file, how it handles repeated runs, or any edge cases. The description covers only the basic purpose and leaves critical operational context unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 each parameter. The description adds the conceptual context of 'continuous, zero-padded' but does not provide any additional syntax, defaults, or behavior beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and clear resource ('continuous, zero-padded Bates identifiers') with context ('legal and audit document production'). It conveys the tool's unique function compared to simple page numbering, but does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for legal and audit document production' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like page_number or watermark, nor any exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than stated definitively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it sets permissions but does not explain whether it modifies the file in place, creates a new file, requires a password, or affects existing restrictions. The output_name parameter hints at output behavior, but the description itself is silent on side effects and security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output file behavior, how permissions interact with encryption or passwords, or what happens when boolean parameters are omitted. An agent would have significant uncertainty about the tool's actual behavior and consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 40% coverage (file and output_name have descriptions; the three boolean flags lack descriptions). The description partially compensates by naming print, copy, edit, which directly map to the boolean parameters, clarifying their intent. However, it does not explain defaults, how the boolean values map to allowed/denied, or the output_name behavior beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Set' with a clear resource 'PDF access permissions' and enumerates the exact scopes (print, copy, edit). This makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from other PDF manipulation tools like remove_restrictions or encrypt.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., owner password), nor any contrast with related tools such as remove_restrictions or encrypt. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It says 'remove' but does not disclose whether the original PDF is modified, whether output_name creates a new file, what happens when files are removed, or what the list output looks like. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description fails to explain the overall workflow, such as how 'remove' interacts with the 'remove' array and 'output_name', whether the original file is altered, or what a successful listing/removal returns. The provided schema details parameters but not the operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including the action enum, remove list, and output_name. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the schema itself does most of the work, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing or removing file attachments in a PDF, using specific verbs and a resource. It is readily understandable, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like add_attachments or extract_attachments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage based on the actions 'list' and 'remove', and the sibling tool names give context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies mutation, but the description does not clarify whether the original file is modified or a new file is created (though output_name suggests a copy), whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what error handling looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is easy to scan and front-loads the primary action. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. This is appropriately concise given the lack of other structured information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide a complete picture. It does not explain the fate of unspecified fields, the exact effect on the file, the format of the output_name default, or any constraints. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'file' and 'output_name' have descriptions), so the description must add meaning. It merely lists the field names that already appear in the schema without providing semantics for types, formats, or behavior (e.g., how 'keywords' array is handled, what 'output_name' suffix means). This adds minimal value over the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Edit') and names the resource ('PDF metadata fields') while enumerating the specific fields (title, author, subject, keywords). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'view_metadata' and 'remove_metadata'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The existence of sibling tools 'view_metadata' and 'remove_metadata' implies differentiation, but the description does not state conditions or exclusions. It only implies usage for editing metadata fields without saying when it is preferred over deleting or viewing metadata.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral details. It only states the basic conversion action, with no information about how the JSON is structured, what formatting is applied, or how output is saved. The schema's description for 'file' incorrectly says 'PDF file', which is a notable inconsistency, though not from the tool description itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point, with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that converts JSON to PDF, the description is overly vague. It does not explain the expected JSON structure, the nature of the 'formatted' output, or any limitations. There is no output schema to clarify the return value. This leaves substantial gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers both parameters, but the description of 'file' in the schema is erroneous ('Absolute path to the PDF file'). The tool description correctly identifies the input as a JSON file, providing a correction. However, it adds no explanation of output_name or defaults beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool converts a JSON file into a PDF document, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pdf_to_json and other format converters. However, it does not specify what 'formatted' means, which is a minor ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'arrange pages' without explaining side effects, whether it modifies the input file or creates a new one, whether blank pages are added, or what output format to expect. This significant gap makes the behavior opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and uses parenthetical clarification for 'signatures', making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the outcome of arranging pages, the naming convention, or how it relates to similar page-layout tools. The user is left guessing about the actual behavior, making the context incomplete for a 2-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. There is no enrichment of parameter details or format expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Arrange pages for booklet printing (signatures)' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It conveys a distinct purpose related to page reordering for booklet signatures, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling layout tools like nup_pdf or posterize_pdf.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for booklet printing, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. It meets the 'implied usage' level but lacks comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core conversion without mentioning side effects, output file naming, page handling, or whether the tool writes files to disk. The agent is left to infer even basic behavior from the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a conversion utility, but without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the output looks like (e.g., generated BMP files) and any relevant defaults or behavior. It does not, leaving important gaps in context despite the schema covering parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters (file, dpi, pages, output_dir), so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already exposes, earning the baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('PDF pages') with a clear output format ('BMP images'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling converters like pdf_to_png or pdf_to_jpg by naming the target format, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to choose BMP over other formats, nor any mention of when not to use this tool. The only implied usage is that if you need BMP output, this tool is suitable, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core conversion. It does not mention output file naming, handling of multiple pages, whether the output directory is created, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, directly stating the tool's function. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., paths to generated files) and clarify behavior for parameters like 'pages'. The current description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool confidently without further assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters (dpi, file, pages, output_dir) have clear descriptions in the schema, so the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond reinforcing the overall purpose. The schema already covers the semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Render PDF pages as JPEG images' uses a specific verb ('render') and explicitly names both the input (PDF pages) and output (JPEG images), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pdf_to_png and pdf_to_tiff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pdf_to_png or pdf_to_tiff. It only states the conversion without any context, exclusions, or preferences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic rendering action and does not clarify important behaviors like whether multiple pages produce separate TIFF files or a single multipage TIFF, output file naming conventions, or overwrite behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the essential action and output. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite full schema coverage, the overall tool context is under-specified. The description does not indicate the nature of the output files (e.g., separate TIFFs per page vs. a multi-page TIFF), nor does it mention any side effects or return behavior. This ambiguity is significant for an agent deciding whether and how to use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (dpi, file, pages, output_dir) are already fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('PDF pages') and output format ('TIFF images'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pdf_to_png or pdf_to_jpg by explicitly naming TIFF.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pdf_to_png or pdf_to_jpg. Neither the description nor annotations provide context about preferred use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion action but fails to mention file output behavior, naming conventions, overwriting, or multi-page handling. The absence of any side-effect details leaves the agent without critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter conversion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain expected outputs, file formats, or edge cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation and result interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (dpi, file, pages, output_dir) already documented. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Render') along with the resource ('PDF pages') and output format ('WebP images'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pdf_to_png or pdf_to_jpg. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. While the format name suggests WebP usage, there is no explicit mention of trade-offs, exclusion criteria, or comparison with siblings. The only implicit signal is the format in the name/description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It mentions the LibreOffice requirement, which is helpful, but does not explain what happens on success/failure, whether existing files are overwritten, or any side effects. The description is minimal beyond the conversion intent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core function and a key requirement. There is no redundant information, making it well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and the schema covers parameter details, the description lacks context about expected input file validation, output default behavior, or integration with other tools. The external dependency is mentioned but not elaborated (e.g., how to check if LibreOffice is available). The schema covers the output_name default, so some completeness is present, but overall it is sparse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, the schema's 'file' description incorrectly says 'Absolute path to the PDF file' rather than the PowerPoint file, which may confuse an agent. The tool description itself adds no parameter clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Convert a PowerPoint presentation (.ppt/.pptx) to PDF', specifying the action, source format, and target format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_to_pdf or excel_to_pdf, and the format list is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pdf_to_ppt or other conversion tools. It only mentions a dependency ('Requires LibreOffice'), which is a prerequisite, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the original file is modified in place, how 'near-blank' is determined, or whether a new file is created despite the `output_name` parameter. This is a significant gap for a tool that removes content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a PDF modification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain default output naming, the meaning of 'near-blank', or safety considerations, leaving the agent to guess about important operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides descriptions for both `file` and `output_name` with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove) and the specific resource (blank or near-blank pages) within a PDF. This distinguishes it from the broader sibling tool `delete_pages`, which handles arbitrary page removal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `delete_pages` or `extract_pages`. The description implies a use case (cleaning up PDFs with blank pages) but does not explicitly state it or mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'clickable entries' but does not disclose whether the original PDF is modified in-place or a new file is created, how existing TOCs are handled, or any other side effects. The optional 'output_name' parameter suggests output behavior, but the description remains silent on it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that clearly conveys the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or unnecessary details, making it highly economical.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the schema covers parameters, the description lacks details about return values, output file handling, and interaction with existing PDF content. Given the tool's potential to modify PDFs, and without annotations or an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (file, entries, output_name). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Add a table of contents page') on a specific resource ('to a PDF') and highlights a key feature ('with clickable entries'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'page_number' or 'edit_bookmarks' by focusing on the TOC page creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'edit_bookmarks' or 'page_number'. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior (adding headers/footers) and the placeholder feature, which is useful. However, with no annotations, it does not mention side effects like whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, nor does it address output behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two efficient sentences. It front-loads the primary action and includes only relevant information about placeholders, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a straightforward tool, and the schema covers all parameters. However, the absence of annotations and an output schema means the description could have provided more context on output behavior or side effects, which is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters, including placeholder usage, achieving 100% coverage. The description only reiterates the placeholder feature, adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add header and/or footer text') and the target ('each page'), making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like watermark or page_number, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for tool selection among the many PDF editing siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, requirements, and return format. It only says 'Returns table data as arrays', which is vague about the structure and does not mention whether the PDF is modified, if it requires a text-based PDF, or if there are limitations. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using two short sentences without redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately states the output type, earning full marks for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one input, no output schema), the description provides a basic understanding but omits critical details about the array structure (e.g., array of rows, array of cells) and does not clarify how it differs from similar tools. The lack of an output schema makes these details more necessary, so the description falls short of being fully informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions (the only parameter 'file' is fully described as an absolute path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('tables from a PDF'), and the output type ('arrays') further clarifies the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pdf_to_excel or get_page_text by focusing specifically on table extraction, making the intent unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of conditions (e.g., 'use for PDFs with text-based tables') or exclusions (e.g., 'for scanned PDFs, use OCR first'). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether the PDF is modified in place or a new file is created, whether permissions are needed, or how the output is named. The schema hints at output_name defaults, but the description does not clarify these traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of ten words, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word is relevant, with no filler or repetition. It is as concise as possible while still being informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity with a nested fields array, but the schema fully describes parameters. However, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., output handling, relation to form_filler) and usage scenarios, making it only minimally complete. It does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema, but more contextual detail would be valuable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions field types, which are also captured in the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Add form fields (text inputs, checkboxes) to a PDF.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('form fields to a PDF'), and the parenthetical specifies the field types. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'form_filler', which likely fills existing forms, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'form_filler' or other PDF manipulation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, target use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic conversion action and does not mention critical details such as whether output files will be overwritten, the order of images in the PDF, error handling for invalid files, or what the function returns upon success. This is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant or irrelevant information, and it is appropriately concise for such a straightforward conversion tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple and the schema covers all parameters, but the description lacks some important contextual details: it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the output file path) or any side effects like file overwriting. Given the absence of an output schema, such information would improve completeness. The description also does not mention that multiple images are combined in the order they appear in the input array.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by mentioning JPG/PNG, which aligns with the 'files' parameter, but it does not provide any extra context for page_size or output_name beyond what the schema already specifies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: converting one or more JPG/PNG images into a multi-page PDF. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like jpg_to_pdf or png_to_pdf, which are also present in the tool list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the name and description (use when you need to combine images into a PDF), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the more specific jpg_to_pdf, png_to_pdf, or other conversion tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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, but it only states the conversion operation without detailing side effects, output file creation, overwrite behavior, or return values. It does not clarify whether the output is a new PDF file or how the output path is determined, though the schema partially covers output_name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 9-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool complexity and full schema parameter coverage, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks behavioral details about output file naming, overwrite, and side effects, and there are no annotations to fill that gap. The schema's output_name description provides some context, but the description itself is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning by clarifying that the input is a JPG/JPEG image, which partially corrects the schema's misleading 'Absolute path to the PDF file' description, but it does not elaborate on output_name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Convert a single JPG/JPEG image to a PDF page' clearly states the verb (convert), resource (JPG/JPEG image), and output (PDF page). It also distinguishes from sibling converters like png_to_pdf by specifying the format and 'single' image, making the tool's scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like image_to_pdf or other format-specific converters. It only states the basic conversion purpose, with no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 explains the purpose but does not state whether the original file is modified in place, what happens if output_name is omitted, whether the operation is reversible, or any potential side effects. The term 'linearized' is technical and not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks important context about default output behavior and side effects. Users would need to rely on the schema or trial/error to understand whether the original file is overwritten or a new file is created. This makes it minimally adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (absolute path for file, output path with default for output_name). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function: 'Optimize a PDF for fast web viewing'. It uses a specific verb (optimize) with a resource (PDF) and provides a concrete goal (fast web viewing), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compression or format conversion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compress or pdf_to_pdfa. The description implies web-focused optimization but does not state when it is appropriate, when not to use it, or which tools might be better suited for other scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the LibreOffice dependency and the output format, but it does not mention anything about conversion fidelity, handling of scanned PDFs, limitations, or side effects. For a conversion tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and a critical dependency. No wasted words, all information is relevant and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple converter, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details about return values, whether the entire PDF is converted or just tables, and how it handles complex layouts. Given the large number of sibling tools, a bit more context would help disambiguate from extract_tables, but the basic functionality is conveyed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters (file, output_name) are already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter behavior, defaults, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Convert') and the resource ('PDF to an Excel spreadsheet (.xlsx)'). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling conversion tools like pdf_to_docx or extract_tables, which target different output formats or extraction modes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes 'Requires LibreOffice,' which is a prerequisite but does not clarify scenarios such as 'use extract_tables for table extraction' or 'use this for full-fidelity spreadsheet conversion.' No excluded cases or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 discloses that all pages are converted, but does not mention whether the original file is modified, how output is named, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core function without waste. Every word contributes to the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the basic purpose, but with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details about output handling and safety. The parameter schema helps, but the description itself is minimal. A brief note about output defaults or reversibility would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds no parameter-specific information. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (convert), the resource (PDF), and the specific transformation (to greyscale). It also specifies 'all pages,' which adds scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like invert_colors or background_color.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does. With many conversion siblings, more context would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention side effects, irreversibility, whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, or any permissions needed. The optional output_name parameter hints at output to a new file, but this is not articulated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple operation, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not explain output behavior, return value, or how it differs from related metadata tools like sanitize_pdf. Given no output schema and no usage guidance, it leaves room for ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for the 'file' and 'output_name' parameters, but it does clarify that all metadata is stripped, which is not repeated in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'strip' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all metadata (title, author, etc.) from a PDF.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like view_metadata and edit_metadata, which handle metadata differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sanitize_pdf or edit_metadata. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the basic conversion action but does not disclose important behaviors such as handling of multi-page TIFFs, output file naming/overwrite behavior, or any side effects on the input file.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks critical details such as multi-page TIFF handling and exact output output (whether it creates a single-page PDF or multiple). The schema error adds to the incompleteness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. However, the schema's description for 'file' incorrectly says 'Absolute path to the PDF file', which is misleading for a TIFF input, but this is not the tool description's fault, so it does not lower the score further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Convert a TIFF image to a PDF page' clearly states the specific verb (convert), the input resource (TIFF image), and the output (PDF page). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pdf_to_tiff (reverse direction) and other image-to-PDF converters such as png_to_pdf or jpg_to_pdf.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like image_to_pdf or pdf_to_tiff. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only states the action and intent, failing to mention whether the original file is overwritten, whether a new file is created, or how quality choices affect the output. This is a significant transparency gap for a file-modifying operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it highly readable and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain output naming defaults, whether the input is preserved or replaced, or the tradeoffs between quality levels, leaving the context incomplete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes all three parameters, including the quality enum and the default output_name behavior, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description itself does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a PDF compression operation with the specific goal of reducing file size. It is easily distinguishable from all sibling tools, which are conversions or page manipulations rather than compression operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when a PDF needs a reduced file size, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. This is a minimal, implied usage statement without contextual depth.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool removes the password but does not disclose whether it creates a new file, overwrites the original, or what happens on an incorrect password. The output_name parameter suggests a new file, but the description doesn't confirm this behavior or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward decryption operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits important context such as output file behavior, default naming, error handling, and whether the original file is modified. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the full scope of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover all 3 parameters (file, password, output_name) with clear meanings, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Decrypt' with a clear resource 'password-protected PDF' and states the outcome '(removes password)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like encrypt or remove_restrictions by explicitly focusing on password-based decryption.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use when a PDF is password-protected. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative/exclusion guidance, such as differentiating from remove_restrictions or change_permissions. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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, but it only states the primary conversion action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), output location behavior, formatting specificity, or any limitations (e.g., unsupported Markdown features). This lacks sufficient transparency for a tool without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly conveys the essential purpose. There is zero wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the verb 'Convert' and the resource, making it immediately actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple file conversion tool, the description adequately covers the input, output, and format. The schema provides the parameter details, and the sibling tools clarify the domain. However, it lacks any mention of output_file handling or potential formatting nuances, which are minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (file and output_name), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already handles this, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema's description for 'file' incorrectly mentions PDF instead of Markdown, but that is not the tool description's fault.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Convert'), a concrete input resource ('Markdown (.md) file'), and the output format ('PDF'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from sibling converters like pdf_to_markdown (reverse direction), txt_to_pdf (different input), and json_to_pdf (different input).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the Markdown file must exist), and no exclusions. It simply states the action without contextualizing its place among similar conversion tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning page-numbered snippets, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how it handles no matches, ordering behavior, or potential limitations. This is minimal transparency beyond the core function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the structure of returned snippets (e.g., text and page number format), how results are ordered, or defaults for optional parameters. More context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented. The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema, merely implying that results are snippets with page numbers. This aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search PDF text and return page-numbered snippets for each match' uses a specific verb (search) and resource (PDF text), and clarifies the output as page-numbered snippets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_text (extracting full text) or pdf_reader (reading content).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for text search within PDFs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_page_text or extract_tables. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the mechanism (reloading and re-saving) but does not state whether the original file is overwritten, whether a new file is created, or what happens to metadata or other properties. This lacks essential transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and method. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or extraneous content, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the schema covers parameter descriptions, the description omits important behavioral context such as output file handling, potential failure modes, and prerequisites. With no annotations or output schema, the description is not complete enough for the agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior and side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither helps nor hinders parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: repairing corrupted PDFs by reloading and re-saving with pdf-lib. The verb 'repair' and resource 'corrupted PDF' are specific, and no sibling tool shares this exact function, distinguishing it from the many conversion and manipulation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for corrupted PDFs but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools or specific conditions, so the usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the rotation action but omits key behavioral details such as whether the rotation is clockwise, the default for the pages parameter, output file creation behavior, or whether the source file is modified. The output_name parameter in the schema hints at output handling, but the description fails to explicitly disclose this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four parameters and two required fields, with no output schema or annotations to fall back on. However, the description only covers the core rotation action and does not elaborate on page range defaults, output naming conventions, or the effect on the original file, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including 'degrees' with enumerated values and 'pages' with default behavior. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action 'rotate' on 'pages in a PDF' with explicit degree values (90, 180, 270), clearly distinguishing it from sibling conversion tools like pdf_to_jpg or page manipulation tools like extract_pages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when rotation of PDF pages is needed, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., deskew_pdf for automatic straightening). No explicit usage guidance is provided beyond the core function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 not disclose whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, nor does it mention whether all pages are affected or if the operation is reversible. The description only restates the core action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that directly states the purpose, method, and unit, with no redundant or extraneous information. It is well-front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but the description omits behavioral details such as output file handling (e.g., whether the original is preserved or overwritten). Given the lack of annotations, this is a notable gap, though the schema partially compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter with units and defaults. The description adds little beyond 'margins to remove,' which is already implicit in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies a verb (crop), resource (pages), and method (specifying margins to remove from each side). The unit (points) is explicitly mentioned, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like rotate or divide_pages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for trimming page margins, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like nup_pdf or fix_page_size. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not reveal side effects, whether the original file is overwritten, or the nature of the output file. Schema details about output_name provide some hint, but the description itself lacks this context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and clear, conveying the essential operation efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema documents all parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out behavioral details like output handling. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'horizontally or vertically' which aligns with the direction enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Split each page into two pages' with the scope of horizontal or vertical. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'split' or 'extract_pages', which operate on the document level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the description's focus on dividing each page in half, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. It does not mention when to use this over 'split' or other page-manipulation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the encryption algorithm (AES-256) but fails to mention whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, whether it overwrites the input, or any required permissions. The output_name parameter hints at output behavior, but the description itself does not clarify these aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It perfectly communicates the core purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The operation is simple and the schema covers parameters well, but the lack of behavioral context (e.g., output file behavior, reversibility, or permission requirements) leaves gaps. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (file, password, output_name) already described. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Encrypt a PDF with AES-256 password protection.' It uses a specific verb (encrypt) with a resource (PDF) and method (AES-256), distinguishing it from siblings like decrypt and change_permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied but not explicit. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'change_permissions' or 'decrypt'. There is no exclusions or alternative guidance, but the operation itself is straightforward enough that an agent can infer intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions extraction but does not disclose that the tool writes files to disk, requires write permissions, or how it handles the optional output_dir parameter. No contradictions exist since no annotations are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core function but lacks details about return values, error handling, behavior of output_dir, and file overwriting. Given no annotations and no output schema, more context would be expected for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('extract') and the resource ('all file attachments embedded in a PDF'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_images (extracts images) and add_attachments (adds attachments).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a use case for extracting embedded file attachments but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to avoid this tool. It provides no exclusions or conditions, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the core behavior but does not disclose what happens with output_dir (whether it is created, default location if omitted), what format or naming scheme the extracted images use, or whether the action is reversible. This lack of behavioral context leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise, clear sentence without unnecessary words. It captures the tool's purpose efficiently and earns its place than extended prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. However, the description omits behavior around the optional output_dir (whether it is created, default behavior) and does not mention return values or file naming. Given the low complexity, the description is adequate but has notable gaps that could confuse an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No new parameter semantics are introduced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: extracting all embedded images from a PDF. It uses a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('PDF'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pdf_to_png or pdf_to_jpg, which convert pages rather than extracting embedded images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when embedded images need to be extracted, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools. No distinction is made from similar extraction tools like extract_attachments, so only implied usage guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 discloses the scope ('all pages') and units ('points') but does not mention whether the original file is modified in-place, if any permissions are needed, or what happens to the existing file. This leaves important behavioral context unstated for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that conveys the essential operation without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple resizing tool, the description and complete schema together cover the key inputs. However, the lack of any behavioral disclosure about output handling or side effects (no annotations, no output schema) leaves some gaps, making this a minimum-viable description rather than a complete one.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description's mention of 'width and height' aligns with the schema and adds no new semantics beyond what is already documented, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Resize') and clearly identifies the resource ('all pages') and the key property (width and height in points). It distinguishes from sibling tools like crop_pdf or page_dimensions by specifying resizing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crop_pdf or nup_pdf. However, the purpose is clear enough to infer usage for resizing page dimensions, so it meets an implied-usage threshold rather than being entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core conversion, omitting output naming behavior, side effects, quality preservation, or error handling. It also does not correct the mismatched parameter description in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short declarative sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool with complete schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks annotations and an output schema. It would benefit from clarifying output file naming behavior, potential multi-file handling, and any page-size defaults beyond what the schema mentions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, which normally yields a baseline of 3. However, the schema's 'file' parameter description ('Absolute path to the PDF file') is inconsistent with the tool's HEIC input purpose. The tool description implicitly clarifies the expected input format but adds no direct parameter-level guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Convert') and the specific resource ('HEIC/HEIF photo (iPhone format) to a PDF page'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling converters like jpg_to_pdf or png_to_pdf by naming the exact input format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by naming the HEIC/HEIF format, so an agent can infer when to use it, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or mention of alternatives. In a long list of converter siblings, this provides context but without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the output (text per page) but omits limitations such as lack of OCR for scanned PDFs, potential output formatting details, or performance characteristics. This is a notable gap for an AI agent deciding whether the tool suits a task.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core behavior and return value, but since there is no output schema, it leaves ambiguity about the return format (e.g., string vs list, page delimiters). Additionally, it does not address limits like scanned PDFs or large files, making it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (file), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given full coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('PDF'), and clarifies the scope ('all text content', 'text of each page'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_page_text, which likely targets specific pages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when all PDF text is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or excluded scenarios. Given the many sibling PDF tools, there is no guidance on preferring get_page_text or pdf_search for partial extraction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions extracting pages and creating a ZIP but does not specify output image format, default file naming, whether the input PDF is modified, or any side effects. This lack of transparency leaves the agent guessing about important behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It contains no unnecessary words or filler, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description covers the main purpose but omits useful details like the image format used, how files are named inside the ZIP, and the default output filename pattern. These gaps could lead to uncertainty for an agent, but the core conversion-to-ZIP behavior is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (file path and output_name with default behavior), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: extracting all pages as images and bundling them into a ZIP archive. This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like pdf_to_png or pdf_to_jpg, which produce images but not a ZIP bundle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when a ZIP archive of page images is desired, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., pdf_to_png for single images). No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Convert' and 'single PNG' but does not disclose behavior such as whether the output file will overwrite existing files, what the default output name and location are (though partially in schema), or any limitations beyond single-image support. For a conversion tool, this is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently states the core function and the key qualifier 'single' in a concise manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool this might seem sufficient, but the description lacks important context: it does not clearly specify the input format (the name implies PNG, but the schema says PDF), does not explain output behavior (e.g., default output naming, overwriting), and with no annotations or output schema the description is the only source of behavioral context. The schema error makes it incomplete and potentially confusing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the schema itself is misleading: the 'file' parameter is described as 'Absolute path to the PDF file' for a PNG-to-PDF tool. The description does not correct or clarify this error, nor does it add meaningful semantics for 'output_name' beyond what the schema already states. The mismatch between the tool's purpose and the parameter description significantly undermines parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Convert') with a clear resource ('a single PNG image') and result ('to a PDF page'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like jpg_to_pdf or tiff_to_pdf by explicitly naming the PNG format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use: when you have a single PNG image that needs to become a PDF page. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using image_to_pdf for multiple images or batch conversion. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on choosing among conversion tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, nor any side effects. The parameter schema hints at output_name with a default suffix, but the tool description itself is silent on operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is immediately actionable and contains no filler. It perfectly front-loads the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool, the description and schema cover the main purpose and parameters. However, behavioral details like whether the operation is in-place or creates a new file are absent, which is relevant given no annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (file path and output_name with default). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema contains.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('reverse') with a clear resource ('page order of a PDF') and clarifies the exact effect ('last page becomes first'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like sort_pages because it defines a specific reversal operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided. The use case is implied by the description, but it doesn't contrast with related tools like sort_pages or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation and scope but does not mention output behavior, whether the original file is preserved or overwritten, or any side effects. The optional output_name in the schema hints at a new file, but the description itself adds no such context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the schema provides full parameter documentation. The description covers the core purpose and scope ('all pages'), which is sufficient for a low-complexity operation. It lacks minor behavioral details but is largely complete given the schema richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and all parameters have clear descriptions, including defaults for color and output_name. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set a background color for all pages of a PDF' uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly states the scope ('all pages'). It is distinct from sibling tools like invert_colors or watermark, as no other tool targets background color.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you want to set a PDF background), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention alternatives such as other page-styling tools. It is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'convert' and does not mention side effects, whether the input file is modified, overwrite behavior, or other operational details. This is minimal transparency beyond the raw conversion action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, one-sentence statement that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes directly to conveying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward single-input conversion, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. The output behavior is implied by the schema's output_name description, and the tool's simplicity reduces the need for extensive detail. It does not explicitly mention non-destructive behavior, but that is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already includes descriptions for both parameters, and the description does not add much beyond clarifying that 'file' is a BMP image. Notably, the schema's 'file' description says 'Absolute path to the PDF file,' which is misleading; the tool description partially corrects this by specifying a BMP input, but it doesn't elaborate further on parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific conversion: 'Convert a BMP image to a PDF page.' It names the input format (BMP), the action (convert), and the output (PDF page), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling converters like png_to_pdf or jpg_to_pdf.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the BMP-specific wording implies it is the right choice for BMP inputs. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so it only reaches the 'implied usage' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only mentions 'Requires Calibre'. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether the original file is modified, what side effects occur, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a conversion tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key dependency. No wasted words, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and a dependency, and the schema documents the two parameters fully. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return value, error handling, and behavioral details, making it only minimally adequate for an agent to invoke reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters, but the file parameter description says 'Absolute path to the PDF file' which is misleading for a mobi-to-pdf converter. The tool description adds no parameter-level clarification and fails to correct this error, so it does not enhance schema semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool converts a Kindle ebook (.mobi) to PDF, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like epub_to_pdf, txt_to_pdf, and other format converters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying the input format and output format, making it obvious this is for mobi files among the many conversion siblings. It also notes the Calibre dependency, a prerequisite that helps an agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description implies a read-only operation and specifies output units (points) and scope (all pages). However, it does not disclose behavior for edge cases like empty PDFs, error handling, or the exact return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without any fluff. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers both the return characteristics (width × height in points) and the scope (all pages). Since there is no output schema, a more explicit note on the return structure would improve completeness, but it is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the file parameter is already well-documented. The description adds context that dimensions are in points and apply to all pages, but it does not introduce parameter-specific constraints or syntax beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as page dimensions, scoped to all pages in a PDF. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_text or conversion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pdf_reader or view_metadata. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or any mention of when another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only mentions the LibreOffice dependency but does not explain conversion behavior such as formatting fidelity, output file handling, or potential issues. This is sparse for a conversion tool that could have significant side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, direct, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second adds an important system requirement. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool with a clear output format and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: input, output, and a key dependency. It could be improved by noting what the tool returns (e.g., path to the created .pptx), but that is largely implied. Overall, it is adequately complete given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the schema already clearly documents 'file' and 'output_name', including a default behavior for output_name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Convert') and clearly identifies the resource (PDF) and the target output (PowerPoint presentation .pptx). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools like pdf_to_png or pdf_to_docx.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool—when a PDF needs to be converted to an editable PowerPoint file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other conversion needs. The 'Requires LibreOffice' prerequisite is useful but not a full usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Remove all annotations') but does not warn about irreversibility or clarify whether the original file is modified or a new file is created. The output_name parameter hints at a new file, but this is not stated in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope efficiently. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and clear schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, it omits whether the operation modifies the input file or produces an output file, which is important for a destructive action. The output_name parameter implies output, but the description does not confirm it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameters (file and output_name) with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('all annotations'), and provides examples (comments, highlights). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_metadata or redact_pdf, which target different content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this removes all annotations without filtering, nor does it contrast with tools like flatten_pdf or redact_pdf. The context is implicit from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites the original file) or creates a new file, nor does it disclose error handling, permissions, or return behavior. The schema mentions output_name defaults to a new file, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the core action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with a concrete example, fully front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and the example is highly illustrative. No wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a PDF mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks essential context such as whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, what the return value is, and edge cases for invalid page orders. The schema partially covers the output_name default, but the overall tool behavior remains under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example that clarifies the 'order' parameter's 1-based index semantics, but the schema already documents this. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so no extra credit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Reorder pages in a PDF by custom order.' It specifies the verb (reorder), resource (pages in PDF), and scope (custom order). The example further clarifies the behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like reverse_pages which only reverse order.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context for use: when you need to reorder pages in a custom sequence. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the example and wording make the intended use obvious. It lacks explicit exclusion or alternative references, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, nor any side effects like permissions or reversibility. The output behavior is only hinted at by the output_name parameter in the schema, not by the description itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function without any redundant content. It is concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple PDF manipulation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality ('add text watermark to all pages') and the schema provides parameter details. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating the output file behavior or that the original is preserved. Overall, adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all 5 parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., opacity 0-1, rotation in degrees, output_name default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but given 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Add' and identifies the resource 'text watermark overlay' applied to 'all pages of a PDF'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_stamps or add_header_footer, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description, but no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as add_stamps or add_header_footer. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so the guidance is minimal but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the DjVuLibre dependency but does not describe output behavior, potential overwriting, error conditions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that creates a new file.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence providing the core purpose and a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward conversion tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and dependency, but lacks context about the output file path behavior (e.g., defaults, overwriting) and does not address the incorrect schema description. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the parameter descriptions are misleading: 'file' is described as 'Absolute path to the PDF file' while the tool converts DjVu to PDF. The tool description does not add any clarifying parameter semantics, missing the opportunity to correct this inconsistency.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Convert a DjVu document to PDF' with a specific verb and resource, unambiguously identifying the tool's function and distinguishing it from sibling converters like pdf_to_tiff or epub_to_pdf.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly establishes when to use this tool (when a DjVu file needs conversion) by being one of many format-specific converters. It adds the prerequisite 'Requires DjVuLibre,' which is important context, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does state the key behavioral effect (making form fields non-editable). However, it does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, how the output file is handled, or any permissions needed, leaving some opacity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part contributes meaning: what is flattened, what it does, and the consequence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description fully captures the tool's core function and outcome. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to explain return values for this operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'file' and 'output_name' fully described. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Flatten' with a clear resource ('form fields and annotations into the page content') and an explicit outcome ('makes them non-editable'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like form_filler or remove_annotations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions that pages are preserved in order, but does not disclose whether input files are modified, whether the output file is overwritten, if permissions are required, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a tool that creates a new file.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that immediately state the action and a key constraint. There is no redundant or misleading information, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only 2 parameters, and the schema fully covers them. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain return values or input-file safety, leaving some contextual gaps. It is adequate for the core function but lacks complete behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'files' and 'output_name' have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Combine') and resource ('multiple PDF files') and specifies the outcome ('into a single document'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'alternate_merge' by noting 'Preserves all pages in order', implying a sequential merge rather than interleaving.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when multiple PDFs need to be combined into one document. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use alternate_merge instead), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Split each page' but does not mention whether the original file is modified, whether a new PDF is created, or where the output goes. This lack of side-effect information leaves behavioral expectations unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, free of filler, and directly states the tool's purpose. It is immediately understandable and appropriately concise, earning the highest score for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema fully documents parameters, but the tool has no annotations or output schema. The one-line description conveys the core transformation but omits operational details such as output behavior and side effects. This leaves the description moderately complete but not fully, deserving a score of 3.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (cols, file, rows, output_name), giving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-specific guidance, warranting the baseline score of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Split' and identifies the resource 'each page' and the outcome 'grid of tiles for poster printing.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like divide_pages (splitting into separate files) or nup_pdf (combining pages per sheet), making its function unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for poster printing' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the highest level that names when-not-to-use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the core conversion without disclosing any side effects, file handling behavior, or limitations. For example, it doesn't mention whether the input file must exist, whether existing output files are overwritten, or any specifics about the PDF page generation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no filler. It is well-structured and easy to read.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool, the description captures the essential action. However, given the lack of annotations and the presence of many sibling format converters, it could benefit from specifying the output behavior (e.g., single page PDF, default naming) or pointing to alternative tools for other formats. It is minimally adequate but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema's description of 'file' as 'Absolute path to the PDF file' is misleading given the tool converts WebP to PDF. The tool description's mention of 'a WebP image' implicitly clarifies the expected input, adding meaning beyond the schema. output_name is described adequately in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('a WebP image') with the output being 'a PDF page'. This distinguishes it from sibling converters like png_to_pdf or jpg_to_pdf.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description: use when you need to convert WebP to PDF. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling converters like image_to_pdf or other format-specific tools, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful dependency note (Requires LibreOffice) but does not describe the conversion process, output filename behavior, error handling, or whether the original file is modified. This is minimal for a tool that could have side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that delivers the core purpose and a key dependency. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential purpose and dependency, and the schema provides the remaining parameter details. However, it omits details like output behavior (unless inferred from the output_name parameter) and potential error conditions (e.g., missing LibreOffice). Given its simplicity, it is average but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has descriptions for both parameters, though the 'file' parameter description incorrectly says 'Absolute path to the PDF file' instead of the Word document. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage, though the schema error could mislead an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific conversion action (Word to PDF), includes the supported formats (.doc/.docx), and mentions a key dependency (LibreOffice). This distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools like markdown_to_pdf or pdf_to_tiff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly provides usage context: it is for converting Word documents to PDF. It does not explicitly exclude other formats or name alternative tools, but the scope is clear. It also notes the LibreOffice requirement as a prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the LibreOffice dependency, which is valuable context for execution. However, it does not describe potential side effects, error behavior, or output handling beyond the conversion itself, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It conveys the core purpose and a critical dependency efficiently, earning its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain default behavior for output_name, potential issues with the input path, or return values. Given the absence of an output schema and the incorrect schema parameter description, a bit more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional information about the parameters, such as format or constraints (e.g., that 'file' should be an XPS path, despite the schema erroneously saying 'PDF file'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: converting an XPS document to PDF. The verb 'Convert' with explicit source and target formats makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools that handle other input formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you have an XPS document) and provides the prerequisite that LibreOffice is required. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. Since no other sibling tool handles XPS input, the guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Delete', but does not clarify whether the action is irreversible, whether the original file is preserved, or that a new output file is created. The output_name schema hint is not referenced, so an agent cannot anticipate the tool's safety profile or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with a clear example, zero wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the example earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally explain output file behavior, whether the original is modified, and error cases. It only covers the page syntax, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete example of the pages syntax ('2,4-6'), clarifying that ranges are 1-based and comma-separated, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete' and resource 'pages from a PDF', with a concrete example that clarifies exact semantics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_pages by showing deletion rather than extraction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The example provides clear usage context for specifying page ranges. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_pages, split, or divide_pages, so it falls short of the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does state a key behavioral trait: output pages are rasterized. However, it does not mention whether the original file is modified, how the output file is named (though schema covers this), or any limitations like maximum angle or DPI effects. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral caveat (rasterization). Both sentences earn their place, with no redundant or filler content. This is exemplary conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral outcome (rasterization), and the schema fully documents parameters. While there is no output schema or annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a tool of this complexity. It lacks only minor details like whether it preserves metadata or creates a new file, but the schema's output_name parameter implies a new file. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function and main side effect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (dpi, file, max_angle, output_name) with descriptive text. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, such as explaining the interaction between max_angle and detection accuracy. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: automatically detecting and correcting tilted scanned PDF pages. It uses specific verbs ('detect and correct') and identifies the resource ('tilted scanned PDF pages'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'rotate' by emphasizing automatic detection. The note that output pages are rasterized further clarifies the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: the description indicates it is for deskewing tilted scans, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rotate' or 'rasterize_pdf'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 adds the meaningful dependency on LibreOffice, which is important, but does not mention output overwriting, formatting fidelity, or error handling. This is adequate for a simple conversion tool but not rich in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical prerequisite. There is zero waste; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does and the external dependency. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool, though it could benefit from clarifying the input parameter mismatch in the schema or expected output behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. It does not clarify that the 'file' parameter should be the Excel file, which is actually misdescribed in the schema as 'Absolute path to the PDF file', but the tool description implicitly communicates this by stating the conversion direction.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the conversion action with a specific verb ('Convert'), the input format (Excel .xls/.xlsx), and the output (PDF), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools like word_to_pdf or pdf_to_excel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (converting Excel files to PDF) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The addition of 'Requires LibreOffice' provides a prerequisite, but there is no guidance on exclusions or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the conversion action and purpose, but does not state whether the original file is modified, if the operation is reversible, or what output behavior to expect (e.g., new file creation). This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and benefit. However, it lacks a note on output/return behavior or whether the original is preserved, which would make it fully complete for a conversion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters 'file' and 'output_name' are sufficiently documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: converting all fonts in a PDF to vector outlines, with the explicit benefit of preventing font substitution. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling PDF tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('prevents font substitution'), implying use when font fidelity is important. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the rationale is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the critical requirement 'Requires LibreOffice', which is useful. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, limitations (e.g., formatting fidelity), or whether the original PDF is modified, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value: the first defines the conversion, the second gives a crucial dependency. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool with two well-schema-documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main purpose and the key prerequisite. It lacks explicit guidance on output defaults or usage scenarios, but these are either in the schema or inferable, so only a minor gap remains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters with full coverage (100%), so the description adds no new parameter information. The schema descriptions are sufficient, and the tool description's mention of 'convert' implies the role of the file parameter but does not enhance the semantics beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Convert a PDF to a Word document (.docx)' with a clear verb and resource, and the output format is explicitly named. This distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools like pdf_to_markdown or pdf_to_tiff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear context (converting PDF to Word) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It does note a prerequisite (LibreOffice), which hints at usage requirements, but no explicit alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the output is a JSON file containing pages, text, and metadata, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects like file overwriting, directory creation, or how the tool handles scanned/non-text PDFs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the essential information without any filler. Every component (PDF, pages/text/metadata, JSON file) is meaningful and no examples or redundant phrasing are included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool with only two parameters, the description conveys the core behavior sufficiently. However, because there is no output schema or annotations, a bit more context about the resulting JSON structure or limitations (e.g., scanned PDFs) would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters (file and output_name) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only implicitly tying 'file' to the input PDF and output_name to the JSON file.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports PDF structure (pages, text, metadata) as a JSON file. The specific verb 'export' and the output format 'JSON file' make the purpose unmistakable and distinguish it from sibling PDF conversion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a JSON representation of PDF content is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like pdf_to_markdown, get_page_text, or extract_tables. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals key output behavior (page labels, heading and list detection) and its non-destructive nature (extracts rather than modifies). However, it does not mention limitations (e.g., no OCR for scanned PDFs) or what happens to complex layouts, which would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and output format. Every word adds value with no fluff or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core purpose and output specifics. It lacks explicit return value information, but for a conversion tool that writes a file, the description is mostly complete. Minor gaps around edge cases and alternatives are present, but the essential information is there.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters fully (file path and output_name with default behavior), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, matching the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Extract PDF text'), the resource ('PDF'), and the output format ('page-labelled Markdown with heading and simple list detection'). This distinguishes it from siblings like pdf_to_tiff (image conversion) or get_page_text (raw text extraction).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for converting PDF text into a structured Markdown representation, hinting at a need for readable, page-labelled output. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over get_page_text, pdf_to_json, or extract_tables, so guidance remains implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the flattening of layers, which is a relevant behavioral trait. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it doesn't mention output file handling, error conditions, or other side effects. It's adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose and a key behavior without any redundant words. It earns its place fully.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool, the description covers the essential action and the flattening behavior. The schema documents output naming, so not repeating it is acceptable. The minor schema error is compensated by the description's clarity about PSD input, making the tool usable for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds indirect clarity by stating the input is PSD, which helps correct the schema's mistaken 'PDF file' description for 'file', but it doesn't explicitly detail parameter syntax or options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool converts PSD to PDF and mentions the key side effect of flattening layers. The verb 'Convert' plus specific input (PSD) and output (PDF) makes it distinct from sibling conversion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you have a PSD and want a PDF) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't name sibling tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses that the tool removes JavaScript, embedded files, and metadata, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not mention whether the original file is modified, whether the operation is destructive or reversible, or any side effects on PDF functionality. Gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. Every word is informative, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description and parameter schema together cover the essential context: what it does, what it removes, and where the input/output files go. It could be more complete by mentioning output behavior or relationships to sibling tools, but it is adequate for the complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full coverage for both parameters (file and output_name) with concise descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('sanitize'), the resource ('PDF'), and the exact items removed (JavaScript, embedded files, metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_metadata, which only handles one of these aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage contexts (cleaning PDFs of potentially dangerous or extraneous content) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like remove_metadata or compress, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is left to the agent to infer when sanitization is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the conversion intent and does not mention any side effects, output behavior, limitations, or requirements, leaving the agent without important safety or operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool, the description combined with the schema provides sufficient purpose and parameter context. However, the lack of any behavioral notes or edge-case handling means it is not fully complete, though no output schema is expected for this type of tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all three parameters, but the 'file' parameter description incorrectly says 'Absolute path to the PDF file.' The tool description clarifies the input is a plain text (.txt) file, adding meaningful correction beyond the schema. It does not explain font_size or output_name, but those are already described in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Convert') and the specific resource ('plain text (.txt) file to a PDF'), distinguishing it from sibling conversion tools by input format. It is unambiguous and directly communicates the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied by the specific input format (.txt), but the description does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses the interleaving algorithm but does not mention potential edge cases such as differing page counts, whether originals are modified, or output behavior beyond the schema's output_name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler; the core behavior is stated upfront and the example clarifies the algorithm.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and both params are covered by the schema, but the description omits relevant behavior for unequal-length PDFs, which is a common scenario for interleaving, and no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (files and output_name), and the description adds no additional parameter details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'interleave' and explains the exact page ordering (page 1 from each file, then page 2), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'merge' and 'combine_single_page'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys the use case (creating alternating page sequences from multiple PDFs), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'merge' or mention when not to use it, so it lacks explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that the output includes headers and body, which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not mention side effects, file overwriting behavior, permission requirements, or attachment handling, leaving some ambiguity about what the conversion actually does.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes only essential information. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool, the description covers the core action. However, it lacks information about output behavior (e.g., return value, whether attachments are included, overwrite policy) and the schema contains a misleading parameter description. The description is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful clarification by specifying the input is an .eml email file, which corrects the schema's misleading 'file' description that says 'PDF file'. This prevents an agent from passing the wrong file type. No additional detail about output_name is provided, but the schema already covers it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Convert' and clearly identifies the source ('email file (.eml)') and target ('PDF') with an explicit detail of including headers and body. This distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools, which handle different formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies the use case (converting .eml files to PDF) and the tool's unique purpose among siblings, but it does not state exclusions or alternative options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavior: 'extracts text content', which alerts users that images or rich layout may be lost. However, it does not cover side effects, output behavior, or any permissions or failure conditions, leaving transparency incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part—conversion action, source/target formats, and the text-extraction caveat—earns its place, making it maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter conversion tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a limitation. However, it does not mention return values, output path behavior (though schema does), or potential pitfalls like DRM or image handling. It is adequate but could be richer in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description for 'file' incorrectly says 'Absolute path to the PDF file' while this tool actually converts EPUB to PDF. The tool description clarifies that 'file' refers to the EPUB input, thus adding corrective meaning beyond the schema. Output_name is adequately described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Convert' and clearly states the resource: 'EPUB ebook to a PDF'. It also adds a differentiator by noting 'extracts text content', which distinguishes it from other conversion tools like markdown_to_pdf or cbz_to_pdf.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the conversion context: when you need to convert an EPUB file to PDF. However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, exclusions, or 'use X instead' guidance is provided. The mention of text extraction hints at limitations but does not name direct alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose core behavior: reading PDF text in overlapping chunks. The term 'stable' suggests deterministic chunking, but details like error handling, return format, and edge cases are absent. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the essential action ('Read PDF text') and provides useful context without any waste. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It does not specify the exact return structure (e.g., list of strings vs. objects with offsets) or behavior around chunk boundaries and overlap. However, the tool is relatively straightforward with well-documented parameters, so it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific insight beyond the schema; 'stable overlapping chunks' hints at chunking behavior but does not elaborate on how parameters interact. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('PDF text'), and adds distinguishing context ('stable overlapping chunks', 'long-document Agent workflows'). This differentiates it from siblings like get_page_text or pdf_search, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by mentioning 'long-document Agent workflows', implying it is intended for chunked text extraction over large documents. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_page_text or pdf_search, nor does it mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly states the core action (invert colors of all pages), but with no annotations, it fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It does not specify whether the original file is overwritten or a new file is created, nor does it mention any side effects or prerequisites. The schema's default output_name hints at output behavior, but the description itself lacks this detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates both the function and a relevant use case without any redundant or extraneous information. It is perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and comprehensive schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It fails to explicitly mention output behavior (new file vs. overwrite) and does not address potential side effects or limitations. With no annotations or output schema, these gaps are notable for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (file and output_name) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Invert') and resource ('colors of all pages'), effectively distinguishing it from related tools like pdf_to_greyscale. The parenthetical 'useful for dark mode printing' adds contextual purpose without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case ('useful for dark mode printing'), giving agents context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it misses the top score for complete usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state the critical irreversible nature ('permanently', 'cannot be recovered') and that pages are rasterized, which is valuable. However, it omits important details like whether the original file is overwritten or a new file is created, and whether all pages or only matching pages are rasterized. These gaps reduce transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is tightly packed with meaning: action ('redact'), scope ('exact text values'), method ('rasterize pages'), and consequence ('cannot be recovered'). No unnecessary words or repetition make it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is relatively minimal. It captures the core purpose and a major side effect but does not clarify file handling (overwrite vs. new file) or rasterization scope (all pages vs. only affected pages). These are significant contextual details for a destructive operation. However, it is sufficient for a basic understanding of the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that 'terms' are exact values (matching the schema's 'Exact words, phrases, or values to redact'). It does not clarify dpi, output_name, or case_sensitive further, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'redact exact text values and rasterize pages', clearly stating the primary action and its consequence. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like rasterize_pdf (which only rasterizes without removing text) and sanitize_pdf (which generally cleans metadata rather than redacting content).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Permanently redact exact text values' provides a clear context for when to use this tool (permanent redaction of specific, exact terms). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use this instead of rasterize_pdf' or 'not for pattern-based redaction'. Still, the implied scope is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It honestly discloses that the signature is not certificate-backed, which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether the file is modified in place or a new file is created, nor does it address reversibility, permissions, or error behavior. This falls short for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes one critical nuance. There is zero wasted wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is relatively simple, the description omits important behavioral details such as whether the original file is overwritten or a new file is produced. With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context on the operation's side effects to be considered complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Add a visible text signature appearance to a PDF'. It also specifies the scope (visible text signature, not a certificate-backed authenticity), which distinguishes it from other PDF tools and clarifies its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (when you need a visible text signature) and includes an important exclusion (no certificate-backed authenticity). However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools or provide comprehensive when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a small behavioral detail by specifying the output is 'a PDF page,' indicating a single-page output. However, it does not mention file handling, default naming, or potential limitations, so transparency is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the essential function without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, meeting the conciseness standard perfectly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description provides the core purpose but lacks additional context such as whether the output file is overwritten, what the default output naming is (though that is partly in the schema), or any system dependencies. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema provides descriptions for both parameters, the description of the 'file' parameter in the schema says 'Absolute path to the PDF file,' which is misleading. The tool description clarifies that the input is actually an SVG file, thereby adding critical meaning beyond the schema and preventing a misinvocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Convert an SVG vector image to a PDF page.' It uses a specific verb (Convert), identifies the input resource (SVG vector image), and names the output (PDF page). This distinctly separates it from sibling conversion tools like png_to_pdf or jpg_to_pdf by explicitly naming SVG.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you have an SVG and need a PDF), but it does not explicitly provide comparisons or exclusions relative to siblings. No guidance is given on choosing this over other converters, but the obvious use case is clear from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the answer is based on 'text content', implying a read-only operation and text-only scope, but it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., no image text, no conversational memory, or that it uses AI). This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and result. No unnecessary words or redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and is easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what the answer is based on. It could be improved by noting potential edge cases (e.g., scanned PDFs without selectable text) or the answer format, but for a straightforward Q&A tool it meets the minimum contextual needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters having clear descriptions (file path and question). The tool description adds a small semantic nuance by saying 'based on its text content', which slightly clarifies the scope beyond the schema, but the schema already carries the primary meaning. Thus a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource structure: "Ask a question about a PDF and get an answer based on its text content." This clearly identifies the tool as a Q&A assistant over PDF text content and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_text or pdf_search, which are more about extraction rather than natural-language answering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the user wants to ask a question about a PDF's text. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools such as ai_summarize or ai_extract_info, so it falls short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core conversion behavior and the 'one page per image' output detail, but does not mention file handling, overwrite behavior, error cases, or prerequisites. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, and output format without any wasted words. The parenthetical clarification is useful and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the transformation and the page-per-image behavior. However, it omits any side effects or potential failures, but these are less critical for a straightforward conversion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (file and output_name), so the description adds no extra parameter insights. The schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate, though the schema's 'file' description incorrectly says 'PDF file'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'convert' and the resource 'comic book archive (.cbz)' with the target format 'PDF', and adds a specific detail about one page per image. This distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools like pdf_to_tiff or jpg_to_pdf.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for converting .cbz files to PDF, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the file-type specificity gives enough context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool compares and reports on page count, text, and size, but does not specify the output format, potential side effects (e.g., file modification), or limitations with encrypted or scanned PDFs. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's action, objects, and outcome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple two-parameter interface with 100% schema coverage, and the description covers the core functionality and the three comparison aspects. Without an output schema, the description could be more explicit about the report's structure, but for a straightforward compare tool it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema with 'Path to first PDF' and 'Path to second PDF'. The description does not add any extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Compare' with 'two PDFs' and lists the exact dimensions of comparison (page count, text, size). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like pdf_to_markdown or pdf_reader, which focus on conversion or reading rather than comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the use case clear: comparing two PDFs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over any alternative, nor does it mention any complementary tools or exclusions. Since no other sibling tool offers comparison, the context is self-evident, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context about memory efficiency ('without loading the entire document'), but does not disclose return format, handling of non-text pages, or potential edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core functionality and includes a relevant qualifier. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with well-documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. It states the purpose and memory benefit, though it could clarify the output format since there is no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter definitions for file, pages, and max_chars_per_page. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads full text from selected PDF pages, with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools like pdf_reader by highlighting the ability to select pages and avoid loading the entire document.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for extracting text from specific pages while conserving context, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions that output is 'separate files' and that page ranges are interpreted as 1-based, but does not specify whether the original file is preserved, how output files are named, or error behavior. This is partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes a useful example. No wasted words; every sentence contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and gives an illustrative example. It does not cover output file locations or edge cases, but these are partially addressed in the schema (e.g., output_name default). Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example of the 'pages' parameter syntax ('1-3,5' extracts pages 1,2,3,5), reinforcing the schema's explanation without significantly extending it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Split a PDF into separate files by page range.' This uses a specific verb (split) and resource (PDF), and the example with page ranges distinguishes it from siblings like 'extract_pages' or 'delete_pages'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear example of how to use the tool ('pages "1-3,5" extracts pages 1,2,3,5'), implicitly conveying when it should be used (when needing to split a PDF into separate files by page ranges). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the word 'View' indicates a read-only operation and the description enumerates the exact metadata fields returned. It does not discuss error handling or output format, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource, and lists the relevant fields without any filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple metadata-viewing tool, the description covers the essential purpose and output fields. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list, though the return format (e.g., JSON object, plain text) is not specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the only parameter ('file' is an absolute path to a PDF) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('view') and resource ('PDF metadata'), and explicitly lists the fields returned (title, author, subject, keywords, creator, page count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_metadata and remove_metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for reading metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as edit_metadata or remove_metadata. No exclusions or conditional usage are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what information is reported, and the overall tone implies a read-only, safe operation. However, it does not explicitly mention that results are cached by default (only the schema's refresh parameter description implies this) or that no side effects occur. This is a minor gap for a status tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and lists the report contents without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has only one optional parameter, and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns by listing the major categories of information (version, platform, dependencies, available tools). This is complete for a status tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameters (the single 'refresh' boolean) with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not mention the parameter or add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('1PDF MCP') and explicitly lists the items reported (version, platform, optional dependencies, available tools). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, which all perform document conversions or manipulations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the tool's context obvious as a system status utility without needing an explicit 'use when' statement. No sibling tools serve a similar purpose, so there are no alternative tools to exclude. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly say to use this tool when you need to check availability or diagnose issues, but this is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the toggle action is unavailable. Since no annotations are provided, this upfront warning carries the burden of conveying the tool's limitation. It also implies the tool is non-destructive, though it doesn't detail output format or error behavior, which is acceptable for a simple inspect tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the core purpose and immediately notes the key limitation. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the domain (OCG/layers) and the critical constraint (no visibility changes). The schema fills in parameter details, so the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for listing layers, while avoiding the non-functional toggle option.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented (file, layer, action, output_name). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reinforcing that toggle is unavailable, but the schema already explains this. Thus, the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: inspecting Optional Content Groups (layers). It uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('Optional Content Groups'), and explicitly notes the limitation about changing visibility, which distinguishes it from other PDF tools that modify content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for read-only inspection and explicitly warns that 'changing visibility is not yet available', guiding agents away from attempting the toggle action. It doesn't name alternatives, but none exist among siblings for OCG management, so the guidance is clear within context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![onepdf-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/WendongAI/onepdf-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/WendongAI/onepdf-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![onepdf-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/WendongAI/onepdf-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/WendongAI/onepdf-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/WendongAI/onepdf-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server