Neotoma

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it parses files into text and PDF images, works with local or base64-encoded files, and explicitly states 'without storing anything' (important for privacy/security context). However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or specific limitations like file size constraints.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality and key behavioral trait ('without storing anything'), and the second provides crucial usage guidance. There's zero wasted text, and it's effectively front-loaded with the most important information.

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 parsing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it doesn't describe the output format (what 'agent-readable text' means, what the PDF image output looks like), which would be helpful given the lack of output schema. The behavioral transparency is solid but could be more complete.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('parse', 'extract') and resources ('files', 'text', 'first-page PDF images'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'use before store' and 'extract entities from a file', which sets it apart from storage-related siblings like 'store' or 'store_structured'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('use before store when you need to extract entities from a file'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'store' or 'store_structured' that handle storage rather than parsing and extraction.

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