macos_pdf_merge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'merge' but doesn't describe what happens during merging (e.g., order preservation, page concatenation), potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting at outputPath), error conditions, or system requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's mutation nature (merging files) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like file handling, error cases, or output expectations. While concise, it fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use, especially as a write operation in a macOS environment.

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%, with both parameters (inputPaths and outputPath) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details (e.g., path requirements, file existence) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 clearly states the verb 'merge' and the resource 'PDF files', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling PDF tools like macos_pdf_page_count (which counts pages) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from non-PDF tools in the server. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation beyond the PDF domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file accessibility), when not to use it (e.g., for non-PDF files), or compare it to other PDF manipulation tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description without explicit context.

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