docshelf_convert_pdf

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by clarifying that this is standalone and does not update a shelf or the INDEX. It also mentions optional H2 splitting. Annotations already provide idempotent/destructive hints, so the bar is lower; the description covers the main side-effect boundary well.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The main action and exclusions are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and the optional split behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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 conversion tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description is largely complete: it states purpose, scope, and when to use it. It could slightly improve by naming the sibling to use when committing to a shelf is desired, but the schema covers invocation details.

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 nested input schema fully documents all parameters: pdf_path, out_dir, split, and quality, including defaults, enums, and output filename behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries that weight, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Standalone PDF → Markdown conversion'. It immediately scopes the tool by stating '(no shelf, no INDEX update)', which clearly distinguishes it from shelf-management siblings without needing to inspect them.

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?

'Use when you want the converted file but don't yet want to commit it to a shelf' gives an explicit condition for use. It implies the alternative is a shelf-committing operation, but it does not name a specific sibling tool, so the routing is clear but slightly less direct than it could be.

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