nup_pdf

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.