split_pdf

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return artifact (a ZIP of per-page files), which is real added value, but says nothing about whether the source PDF is modified, how files inside the ZIP are named, or failure behavior on encrypted/corrupt PDFs.

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 short sentences, output behavior front-loaded before the use case. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the essential contract: input is a PDF path, output is a ZIP of single-page files. Remaining gaps (source file preservation, in-ZIP naming, error cases) are minor for a simple utility.

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) and the default '-papyrio.zip' naming are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 ('Separate every page of a PDF into its own file') and names the exact output form (ZIP archive). No sibling in the list does anything similar, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 second sentence gives a concrete use case: pulling single pages out of a long document. It does not name an alternative or a when-not condition (e.g., use extract_pdf_text to read pages without splitting), but the sibling set is non-overlapping so ambiguity is low.

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