extract_pdf_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral traits: the output encoding (UTF-8), the performance profile (fast and exact with a text layer), and the failure mode plus remediation for scanned PDFs. It does not mention that the default output_path causes the tool to write a file to disk rather than only returning text, nor any error/permission behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the primary capability is front-loaded ahead of the caveat and the alternative. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of information (output, success condition, failure condition + fallback).

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return value type and the critical input-quality precondition, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only gap is that the file-writing side effect implied by output_path is left entirely to the schema.

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 both parameters (file, output_path, including the '-papyrio.txt' default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or path-handling detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the text of a PDF as UTF-8') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling ocr_pdf by naming the condition that distinguishes them (text layer vs. scanned). An agent can select this over the other eleven siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Fast and exact when the PDF already has a text layer'), an explicit when-not ('A scanned PDF has none'), and names the alternative to run first ('run ocr_pdf on it first'). The routing decision is fully resolved in the description.

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