extract_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: bytes/file-like/dict inputs will be saved to temp storage. However, it does not mention output format, potential errors, or any side effects beyond the temp save. This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.

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 highly efficient: a single topic sentence followed by a concise bulleted list of accepted inputs. There is zero fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 are covered. The description explains the core purpose and input handling, which is the main complexity here. It lacks detail on encoding and edge cases (e.g., invalid PDFs), but for a straightforward extraction tool with structured output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, but the description compensates well for the required 'file' parameter by detailing three accepted forms (full path, short filename, bytes/file-like/dict with base64). However, it provides no explanation of the optional 'encoding' parameter, which remains undocumented. Significant but incomplete compensation.

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 function ('Extract all text from a PDF') with a specific verb and resource. 'All text' distinguishes it from sibling extract_text_by_page, and the list of accepted input forms adds useful context. This fully clarifies what the tool does.

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?

The description implies usage for full-document text extraction via the phrase 'all text', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. With siblings like extract_text_by_page and extract_metadata, the description would benefit from saying when to use this tool instead, but the core context is present.

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