inspect_schematic_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (inspect and classify) but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, mention permissions, or describe error behavior or side effects. The term 'inspect' implies non-destructive, but this is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, achieving high conciseness and clarity.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description lacks context about return values, classification criteria, or how the results might be used. Agents are left without information about what the tool outputs, making it 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?

The schema has a single parameter `source_path` with no description (0% schema coverage). The description adds minimal value by implying that `source_path` refers to the local PDF file, but it does not elaborate on path format, required extension, or any restrictions.

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: inspect a local PDF and classify each page as vector, raster, hybrid, or empty. It uses specific verbs (inspect, classify) and specifies the resource (local PDF) and output categories, making it distinct from sibling tools like convert or validate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, intended scenarios, or compare with sibling tools such as convert_schematic_pdf or validate_schematic_ir.

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