docshelf_convert_pdf

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this is 'standalone' (no side effects on shelf/index) and mentions optional splitting. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the essential purpose and usage context. No extraneous words; every part earns its place.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: conversion, standalone nature, and optional split. It lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., file existence checks) but overall is sufficient.

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 input schema already contains detailed descriptions for all four properties (pdf_path, out_dir, quality, split). The description's mention of splitting by H2 adds no new information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, minimal additional contribution from description 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 'Standalone PDF → Markdown conversion (no shelf, no INDEX update)', which specifies the action (conversion), input (PDF), output (Markdown), and distinguishing constraints. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the title 'Convert a PDF to Markdown' reinforces this.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you want the converted file but don't yet want to commit it to a shelf', providing a clear context for use. It implies alternatives (shelf-related tools) but does not explicitly list them or state when not to use this tool.

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