get_pdf_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavior. It lists return fields but does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention permissions, file existence requirements, or error handling. The implied nature (local file read) provides some transparency.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, listing all return fields. It is concise with no unnecessary content, though it could be slightly shorter.

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 no output schema, the description adequately details the return dictionary. However, it omits edge cases (e.g., missing file, encrypted handling) and does not position itself among the 12 sibling tools, which could confuse selection.

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 single parameter file_path is described as 'PDF文件的完整路径' (full path of PDF file), adding meaning beyond the schema's title 'File Path'. This compensates for 0% schema coverage.

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 it retrieves basic PDF metadata (page_count, title, author, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like read_pdf_as_text (text content) or get_pdf_page_info (page-specific data). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pdf_page_info or extract_pdf_tables. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenario appropriateness.

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