extract_pdf_tables

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 dependency on PDF structure and a caveat about complex/scanned PDFs, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or discuss permissions, performance, 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with a clear header, a useful caveat note, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

With 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure in detail. However, it does not cover error handling or the exact format for the pages parameter, leaving some gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: file_path as the full path and pages as an optional range (default all pages). However, the format of the page range is not specified (e.g., '1-3,5').

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 purpose: '提取PDF中的表格数据' (extract tabular data from PDF). It uses a specific verb and resource, and is well distinguished from siblings that extract text, images, links, etc.

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 includes a note about limitations: '表格提取依赖PDF的结构，对于复杂或扫描版PDF可能效果不佳' (table extraction depends on PDF structure; may not work well for complex or scanned PDFs). This provides when-not-to-use guidance, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools from the sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.