classify_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the return type and output fields, plus performance characteristics ('lightweight', 'faster'), but does not mention input requirements (e.g., whether path or data is required, precedence if both given), error conditions, or side effects. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence summary, one comparison sentence, and a short Args list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 has simple parameters and an output schema (so return details are covered). The description explains purpose, performance trade-off, and parameter formats. Minor missing piece is guidance on choosing between path and data, but overall it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides useful semantic details: path is an absolute local filesystem path, data is base64-encoded PDF bytes. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not clarify the relationship or requiredness between the two optional-looking params.

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 ('classify') with a clear resource ('PDF') and lists concrete outputs (type, page count, OCR pages, confidence). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling detect_pdf by noting it is 'faster' and returns a PdfClassification without full analysis, making its scope clear.

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 provides clear context by explicitly comparing to detect_pdf and framing this as the lightweight/faster alternative. It does not enumerate every sibling exclusion, but the 'Faster than detect_pdf — returns a PdfClassification without full analysis' implies when to choose this tool over full analysis.

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