pdf_get_toc

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

Despite no annotations, the description includes a strong security warning about untrusted data, which is critical behavioral information. It also notes the output is 'PDF-derived'. However, it lacks details on failure modes (e.g., if PDF has no TOC).

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 relatively concise with two sentences of purpose plus a security warning. The warning is essential but front-loaded, which is acceptable. Could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Given a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a key security aspect. It is mostly complete, though could mention empty TOC handling.

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 100% and the description adds no extra information about the single parameter 'path'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema suffices.

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 the tool returns the full table of contents for a PDF, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like pdf_info (metadata) or pdf_read_pages (text content).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools or provide context for selection.

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