extract_embedded_fonts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains output includes metadata and binary buffers for embedded custom fonts, and that Base 14 fonts are absent. Implies read-only behavior and file input, but does not elaborate on file size or password handling beyond schema.

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?

Three sentences: main action, use case, and key exclusion. Every sentence adds value, no redundant words. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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 output schema exists and low complexity, description covers essential: what it does, which fonts are included/excluded, and why. Sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, so schema already documents all parameters. Description adds no new parameter-specific details, but does clarify overall input-output relationship.

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?

Description clearly states 'Extract metadata and buffers of all embedded fonts in a PDF' and distinguishes between custom fonts (Type0 with buffer) and Base 14 system fonts that are not embedded. This differentiates it from sibling tools like inspect_pdf_fonts.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('inspect which fonts are actually embedded') and what fonts are excluded (Base 14). However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings.

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