detect_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's non-extraction nature and mentions 'fast' behavior, but lacks details on error handling, file access implications, or parameter precedence.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and output. The argument documentation is concise and directly useful, with no filler words.

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 and has an output schema, and the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter meanings. It lacks edge-case details and explicit guidance on choosing between path and data, but is generally adequate for a lightweight detection tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: path as an absolute filesystem path and data as base64-encoded bytes. It does not clarify mutual exclusivity or which takes precedence, but provides meaningful definitions.

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 states the tool detects PDFs and returns type, page count, and pages needing OCR. It clearly distinguishes from full-text extraction tools by emphasizing 'quick classification', but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling classify_pdf.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this for quick classification without full text extraction', providing a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not name specific alternatives, leaving the distinction from classify_pdf implied.

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