export_chapter_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying that the tool saves a file locally and advising on reporting behavior ('prefer reporting only the saved path unless the user asked for more detail'). However, it lacks details on potential errors (e.g., if chapterId is invalid), file naming conventions, or performance aspects like rate limits, which are important for a file export 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a limitation and a usage tip. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters and an output schema, avoiding unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, limitations, and reporting advice. However, with no annotations and an output schema (which handles return values), it could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling or file system interactions to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (chapterId as UUID, quality with enum values, outputDir as optional directory). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the implications of 'data-saver' vs 'original' quality or default output locations. Thus, it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Export') and resource ('an internal MangaDex chapter to a local PDF file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_chapter_cbz (which exports to CBZ format) and get_chapter_access_info (which retrieves metadata rather than exporting). It explicitly mentions the limitation that external-hosted chapters cannot be exported, which further clarifies its scope.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool by stating it's for exporting internal MangaDex chapters to PDF and that external-hosted chapters cannot be exported. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like export_chapter_cbz for CBZ format or get_chapter_access_info for checking export eligibility, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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