Extracts embedded text first; if none, processes one page with the configured model provider, reserving costs before dispatch without retrying uncertain operations.
Extract embedded text first, otherwise process one page with the explicitly configured model provider. Costs are reserved before dispatch. Uncertain operations are never retried automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| runId | Yes | ||
| sourceId | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: costs are reserved before dispatch and uncertain operations are never retried automatically, which matters for a cost-bearing, non-idempotent operation.
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?
Three short sentences that are reasonably front-loaded, but the opening clause 'Extract embedded text first, otherwise...' is syntactically awkward and forces re-reading to parse the intended conditional. Little waste, but the structure slightly impedes comprehension.
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?
No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the cost/retry behavior is a useful addition. However, for a mutating tool with four required, zero-coverage parameters, the description omits the meaning of the identifiers required to invoke it and the side effects applied to a page.
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% and the description only indirectly alludes to the 'page' parameter ('process one page'). projectId, runId, and sourceId are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: process one page with the configured model provider, with a pre-step of extracting embedded text. It implies a distinction from the plural sibling pages_process by emphasizing 'one page', but never names or explicitly contrasts the sibling.
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 phrase 'Extract embedded text first, otherwise process one page' implies a conditional workflow, but no when-to-use guidance relative to pages_process or page_retry is given. The agent must infer the routing from the plural sibling name rather than from explicit instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.