split_pdf

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'split PDF into separate files', implying output as files but gives no details about whether the original is modified, where files are saved, how results are returned, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation-like operation.

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, concise sentence that directly states the core function. There is no filler or redundant information; every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a tool that splits PDFs by page ranges, the exact format and semantics of split_ranges are critical but omitted. The description also does not mention what happens with invalid ranges, whether ranges are inclusive, how output files are named or returned, or any edge cases. The existence of an output schema does not cover these input semantics, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does clarify that split_ranges refers to 'page ranges', which adds meaning beyond the bare parameter name. However, it does not specify the structure of the ranges (e.g., array of {start,end} objects, inclusiveness, multiple ranges), leaving significant ambiguity for a tool that depends on this precise format.

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 uses a specific verb 'Split' and identifies the resource 'PDF' and the criterion 'by page ranges'. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like merge_pdfs (combining) and pdf_to_images (converting to images), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action without mentioning exclusions (e.g., if you need images, use pdf_to_images) or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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