posterize_pdf

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.