extract_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only describes inputs and does not mention limitations (e.g., scanned PDFs, file size), error behavior, or output format, leaving the agent without expectations beyond the apparent read-only nature.

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-organized, with a one-line summary followed by a short Args block. Every sentence contributes, and there is no fluff.

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?

While the basic operation is clear and an output schema exists so return values need not be documented, the description omits usage context among the sibling tools and any limitations. For a simple tool this is minimal but not fully contextual.

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?

Both parameters receive meaningful descriptions: path is an absolute local file path, and data is base64-encoded PDF bytes. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it does not clarify whether the parameters are mutually exclusive or can be combined.

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 that the tool extracts plain text from a PDF, naming both the resource and the output type. The phrase 'plain text' distinguishes it from sibling tools that extract with positions or regions, though it could explicitly mention full-document extraction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_text_with_positions or extract_pages_markdown. The description only documents the arguments and leaves the agent to infer usage context from the tool name.

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