split_pdf

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does only part of the job: it implies a non-destructive read that produces a new document, but never says whether the source is left untouched, how out-of-range or duplicate page numbers are handled, or what limits exist. For a file-producing tool with zero annotation coverage, these omissions are significant.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the action first followed by the qualifier. The only redundancy is repeating the example page-range string that the schema already contains.

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 simple three-parameter, fully described schema with no nested objects and no output schema, the description is adequate to call the tool correctly. It is not complete, however, because result behavior — what the caller receives and how errors such as invalid ranges surface — is left entirely unaddressed with no annotations to fall back on.

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 all three parameters are already documented in structured form, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's page-range example adds a small amount of concrete syntax but duplicates what the schema already says for 'pages' and says nothing about output_filename or the base64/URL input forms.

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 names a specific verb (extracts) and resource (pages from a PDF) and states the result is a new PDF, so the operation is unambiguous. It falls short of 5 because it does not distinguish itself from adjacent tools such as merge_pdfs or compress_pdf, relying on the reader to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings, nor any prerequisites such as whether the source PDF must be unencrypted or within a size limit. The only usage hint is the embedded page-range syntax example, which is formatting rather than selection guidance.

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