ocg_manager

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.