extract_pages

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.