gemini_summarize_pdf_toolSummarize PDF documents from a local file path into concise, detailed, or executive summaries for quick review and understanding.
Summarize a PDF document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Model to use. | flash |
| style | No | Summary style (concise, detailed, executive). | concise |
| file_path | Yes | Absolute path to the PDF. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about permissions, model behavior, processing limits, or side effects. It only restates the operation, adding no context beyond the schema defaults (model/style).
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified for a tool with several sibling alternatives.
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?
With 100% schema coverage and an output schema, parameters and return values are handled elsewhere. The remaining gap is the absence of any sibling differentiation or usage context, leaving the definition minimally viable for an agent choosing among ~35 Gemini tools.
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 the schema already documents file_path, model, and style semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (Summarize) and resource (PDF document), so the core function is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like gemini_summarize_tool or gemini_analyze_document_tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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 on when to use this tool versus gemini_summarize_tool, gemini_analyze_document_tool, or gemini_extract_tables_tool. The agent is left to infer the PDF-specific scope entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.