pdf_render_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that each page is saved as a PNG artifact with an id returned, that `view` returns images because they are context-expensive, and that hard limits (20 pages/call, reduced resolution for huge pages) are enforced and always reported, never silent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then args; the structure is sound and nearly every sentence adds value. The behavioral paragraph is somewhat long, but the limit/reporting details justify the space.

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 4-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains inputs, the returned artifacts/ids, the default return behavior, and the enforced limits. An agent can call it correctly without further context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must document all four parameters and does: `ref` (path or artifact id), `pages` with concrete syntax examples and default, `dpi` with its 36-600 range and a recommended 150, and `view` with its default and purpose.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Render PDF pages to images', and immediately frames the distinction 'looked at rather than read'. This clearly separates it from text-oriented siblings like pdf_ocr and pdf_check_text.

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 explicit when-to-use cases (checking a redaction landed, previewing, appearance-as-content like handwriting/signatures) and names the alternative pdf_ocr with the exact condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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