pdf_render_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that every page is saved as a PNG artifact, that with view=true images are returned, that limits exist (20 pages per call), and that resolution reduction is reported. It even explains why images are expensive in context. This is highly transparent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. It starts with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then behavioral details, then parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it behaves (including limits and side effects), and all parameters with defaults and examples. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 must compensate. It explains each parameter: ref (file path or artifact id), pages (formats like '1-20', 'all', defaults to all), dpi (range 36-600, suggests 150), and view (returns images vs ids). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb (Render) and resource (PDF pages to images) and explains the purpose: to look at a page rather than read it. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming pdf_ocr as the alternative for reading, and gives concrete use cases (checking redaction, split, handwriting, signatures, charts).

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 says when to use this tool ('Use it to see what a page looks like') and when not ('For reading a scan prefer pdf_ocr'), with conditions (when OCR is unavailable or would mangle). This is clear guidance with alternatives.

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