rca_guide_pdf_preview

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and read-only. The description adds value by detailing the return JSON fields, which helps the agent understand what to expect, but does not introduce new behavioral traits.

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 concise and front-loaded with the key requirement (call before ingestion). It uses bullet points for strategies and clearly separates arguments and returns. Every sentence is necessary and informative without being verbose.

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 purpose, usage guidelines, strategies, parameters, and return structure. It is well-aligned with the annotations and sibling tools, providing all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the detailed return description.

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 description lists the parameters (pdf_base64, n_pages, strategy) and provides an example for encoding pdf_base64. While the input schema has descriptions for n_pages and strategy, the description adds context for the strategy options and a practical code example for pdf_base64, enhancing understanding.

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 tool's purpose: preview a PDF before full ingestion to verify parsing quality. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool rca_guide_ingest_pdf by advising to always call this first.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Always call this BEFORE rca_guide_ingest_pdf.' Also details strategy options (text_native, ocr, table, mixed, auto) with their appropriate use cases, giving the agent clear context on when to use each.

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