get_pdf_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the scope is limited to metadata, which is useful, but the description does not explicitly state that the file is not modified or that page content is not extracted. There is no contradiction.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the returned metadata fields in minimal space.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields, which gives the agent a good sense of the result. It slightly lacks an explicit statement about read-only behavior, but this is largely inferable from the verb 'Get' and the nature of metadata.

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 100% description coverage for its single parameter, file_path, which is clearly documented as 'Absolute path to the PDF file'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'PDF metadata' and lists concrete fields (title, author, page count, file size). This clearly distinguishes it from content-oriented siblings like get_toc, read_chapter, and read_pages.

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 implied usage is that this tool is for document-level metadata rather than content extraction, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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