extract_page_text

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It mentions extraction modes but does not explain their behavior or differences. It says returns statistics but does not specify what those are. Lacks disclosure of side effects or performance implications.

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 concise and well-structured as a docstring with sections for args and returns. No superfluous sentences, though it could be more compact.

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 no annotations, 3 parameters, and an output schema, the description should provide more context. It mentions a JSON return but does not describe the structure or any error conditions. The tool's behavior regarding page validation, encoding, or performance is absent.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It adds '1-based' for page_number, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the extraction_mode options beyond listing their names, and file_path is simply restated. Missing details on allowed values, format, or constraints.

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 extracts text from a specific PDF page, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_pdf' (full document) and 'search_pdf_text' (search).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_pdf' for full document extraction or 'ocr_pdf' for scanned pages. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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