doc_pdf_streams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the process: locating all stream/endstream blocks, attempting zlib decompression, and reporting sizes and entropy. This is transparent about the tool's actions, though it does not mention if it modifies the file (assumed read-only) or any permission requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and efficiently adds detail without redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 description covers the core functionality well but lacks detail on the output format (e.g., how sizes and entropy are reported). Given no output schema, this is a gap. However, the tool is simple with one parameter, so it is largely adequate.

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 only parameter (file_path) is fully described in the schema with 'Path to PDF file'. The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'analyzes' and the resource 'PDF streams', detailing the exact steps (locating blocks, decompression, reporting sizes and entropy). It distinguishes from siblings like doc_pdf_hidden and doc_pdf_metadata by focusing on compressed streams.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'finding hidden data within compressed PDF content streams.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with specific siblings.

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