export_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a critical prerequisite (weasyprint and libpango/libcairo), which is useful context. However, it does not describe side effects, whether it overwrites existing output files, or any error conditions beyond missing dependencies.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key dependency note. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 simplicity (3 params, no annotations), the description covers its main purpose and a key prerequisite. However, there is ambiguity about whether it generates documentation from scratch or exports pre-existing documentation, especially with sibling tools like generate_project_documentation. The presence of an output schema may compensate, but the description alone leaves this gap.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (title, repo_path, output_path) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning, such as default behavior for output_path when null, or how title is used in the document. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 generates documentation and exports it as a PDF file, using a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('documentation') with a target format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_markdown and export_html, which target other formats, and generate_project_documentation, which likely only generates documentation without exporting.

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 implies usage when PDF output is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like export_markdown or export_html, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the weasyprint/system dependencies. It provides some context by noting the required dependencies, but lacks clear when-to-use guidance.

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