提取书籍文本

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well by revealing that OCR runs in a separate worker process, the tool returns immediately without blocking MCP, and progress is tracked via get_job_status. It does not describe potential side effects like file system writes, but for a read/extraction tool this is a meaningful transparency level.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary outputs and immediately followed by the key asynchronous behavior and follow-up command. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description adequately explains the asynchronous nature and output types, but it omits parameter semantics, prerequisites, and how the mode/resume options affect extraction. Given the tool's complexity and 6 parameters, the description leaves notable 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?

The input schema has 6 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description provides no explanation for any parameter. It does not clarify the meaning of mode, resume, password, max_pages, or output_dir, and even the required 'path' is only implicitly referenced as 'PDF' in the description. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter 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 tool extracts PDFs into verifiable body text, segmented text, page records, and quality audits, which names the verb, resource, and output types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool extract_book_background, which appears to serve a similar purpose.

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?

It provides clear context that the tool runs asynchronously and immediately returns, directing the agent to use get_job_status for progress and heartbeat. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like extract_book_background, batch_extract_library, or plan_pdf_job, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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