pdf_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that Tesseract availability is probed and that OCR need is reported, but says nothing about whether the PDF is parsed in full (cost), what happens if Tesseract is absent, or error behavior on a non-PDF path. Read-only-ness is only implicit in the nature of the tool.

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?

A single sentence with no padding, front-loaded with the primary output (page count) before the secondary details. The grammar is a fragment rather than a sentence, which costs it the top score.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values, and it does enumerate them. However, for a tool whose whole value is pre-flight inspection, it omits the workflow context (when to use it, what to do with the OCR flags) and any error/edge-case behavior, leaving the definition only marginally 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 description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'path' has only the title 'Path'. The description never mentions the parameter; only the phrase 'A PDF's' weakly implies it is a PDF file path. It does not compensate for the coverage gap by specifying path form (local file, absolute vs relative).

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 names a specific resource (a PDF) and enumerates exactly what it reports: page count, pages with a text layer, pages needing OCR, and the Tesseract location. That is enough to distinguish it from read_page/read_pages/words_in, which return content rather than an inventory. It lacks an explicit verb, but the informational purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling readers, and no prerequisites (e.g. 'call before read_pages to decide which pages need OCR'). The enumerated outputs only weakly imply a planning use, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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