extract_pages_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details such as the 0-indexed input vs. 1-indexed output page numbers and the inclusion of layout metadata. However, it omits other behaviors like error handling, whether path and data are mutually exclusive, or performance implications, leaving 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 compact and well-structured, leading with the core purpose, then a crucial indexing note, followed by a simple bulleted Args list. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is 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 description covers the essential input parameters, output content type, and the indexing nuance, which is sufficient given the presence of an output schema. It falls short on practical usage details like when to use path vs. data, and does not mention potential error scenarios, but overall it provides a solid foundation for using the 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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description's Args section is essential. It provides clear semantics for 'path' (absolute local path), 'data' (base64 PDF bytes), and 'pages' (optional 0-indexed list), adding value beyond the raw schema. It does not, however, clarify the relationship between path and data (e.g., if exactly one must be provided).

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 a specific action: 'Extract per-page Markdown with layout metadata.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like extract_text and extract_text_with_positions by specifying Markdown output with tables, columns, and OCR info, making the tool's unique purpose obvious.

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 implies usage through its clear purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like extract_text or extract_text_with_positions, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough to infer typical use, but no alternatives are named.

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