extract-text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it reveals little. It does not mention whether the tool writes output files (despite outputDir/outputFilename parameters), whether it returns text directly, or how it handles scanned content. The basic action is clear, but side effects and output behavior are undocumented.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified for a 5-parameter tool, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is only a one-liner, leaving critical gaps: it does not explain what the tool returns, whether it writes files to outputDir, or how it differs from OCR for scanned PDFs. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without further assumptions.

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%, so all five parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for full coverage. It does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., byWord vs detailed), but the schema handles individual semantics.

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 ('extract') and resource ('text content from a PDF document'), making the tool's primary purpose obvious. It distinguishes from most sibling tools like rotate-pdf or merge-pdfs, but does not differentiate from ocr-pdf, which also extracts text (from scanned PDFs). Thus it is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios (e.g., digital vs. scanned PDFs) or when to prefer extract-text over ocr-pdf. The description simply states what it does without usage context.

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