Inspect a PDF

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'without changing it' merely restates readOnlyHint and it adds no new behavioral detail such as failure modes on malformed PDFs or path-resolution behavior. Adequate but not additive over the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what gets read and enumerates the outputs, the second handles disambiguation. No filler and no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the one input parameter is fully covered by the schema. Combined with explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema itself already disambiguates that the path points to a PDF and not HTML source. The description adds no parameter-level syntax, so baseline 4 for a one-param, fully documented schema is 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 (Read/Inspect) and resource (existing PDF) and enumerates exactly what is exposed: version, page count, profile claims, warnings, and template-composition compatibility. It also implicitly separates itself from render/verify siblings by scoping to an existing PDF rather than source.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use fullbleed_verify for rendering/checking HTML/CSS source and fullbleed_assets with action='verify' for asset packages. Both the when-to-use and the concrete alternative invocations are given, leaving nothing to inference.

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