extract_local_pdf_text

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions saving a sidecar file (a side effect) and returning chunks, but does not disclose overwrite behavior, permissions needed, or the underlying matching mechanism. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It could be more structured (e.g., listing outputs), but it wastes no words and is easily scannable.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits critical details: the meaning of 'top matching chunks', how the sidecar is saved, and what the tool returns. It is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional documentation.

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 0%, so the description should clarify parameters. It hints that 'research_question' and 'title_hint' drive matching, but does not explain 'chunk_size_chars', 'chunk_overlap_chars', or 'top_chunks'. The added semantic value is minimal beyond the parameter names.

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 tool's actions: extracting full text from a local PDF, saving a sidecar text file, and returning top matching chunks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_pdf_page_text' by implying chunked-based retrieval, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'read_pdf_document' or 'inspect_open_access_pdf'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., file accessibility), or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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