macos_pdf_page_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't cover error handling (e.g., invalid paths), performance aspects (e.g., speed for large files), or output format (e.g., integer count), which are critical for an agent to use it effectively.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., an integer, error messages) or behavioral nuances, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as path format requirements (e.g., absolute vs. relative) or file size limitations, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('number of pages in a PDF file'), making the tool's purpose immediately apparent. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like macos_pdf_merge (which combines PDFs) and macos_image_info (which handles images), establishing a unique role within the server's toolset.

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), exclusions (e.g., non-PDF files), or related tools like macos_pick_file for selecting files, leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.

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