get_pdf_info

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It discloses the key trait 'without processing content', which implies a read-only, fast operation. However, it omits other behavioral details such as error handling, permission requirements, or performance characteristics, making this only partially transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes only essential information. Every word contributes value, making it perfectly concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what the tool does and its key non-behavior. It lacks only a brief mention of common use cases or cost implications, but overall it is 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter file_path. The tool description does not elaborate on this parameter, but the name is self-explanatory and unambiguous, so the lack of additional explanation is acceptable.

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 gets 'comprehensive PDF information' and specifically notes it does so 'without processing content', which distinguishes it from content-focused siblings like extract_text. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar extract_metadata 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'without processing content' implies a use case for quick information retrieval, it does not name alternatives or specify conditions under which this tool is preferred.

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