get_pdf

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. It explicitly states that only existing files are returned and that a key with no PDF raises an error. It does not mention side effects (none expected) or auth, but the read-only nature is implied. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose and key behavioral constraints (only existing files, error on missing PDF) are front-loaded, making it easy for the agent to scan and understand.

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 is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and the output schema exists (though not shown). The description covers the return type and error behavior. It does not mention edge cases like invalid citation_key or what happens if the entry itself doesn't exist, but these are minor given the straightforward nature. The description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema has one parameter (citation_key) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only refers to 'an entry' without explaining what citation_key is or its expected format. The description does not clarify that citation_key is the identifier used to locate the entry, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 ('Return'), the resource ('absolute file paths of the PDFs attached to an entry'), and the intended purpose ('so the assistant can read and summarize them'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_entry or search, which focus on metadata or text.

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 implies usage when PDFs need to be accessed for reading/summarizing, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives. There is no mention of other tools like get_entry for retrieving entry metadata or search for finding entries.

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