list_pdf_hyperlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the output format and reported data (target URI, bbox, text) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. The implied read-only nature from 'list' is somewhat clear, but more direct disclosure would be better.

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 with a short intro, usage guidance, Args, Returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 (2 parameters, read-only extraction), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, output format, and usage context. An example is provided, making it complete for an agent.

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 0%, but the description adds complete meaning for both parameters: input_path is an absolute path, password is optional for encrypted PDFs. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it extracts all hyperlinks and clickable URIs from a PDF, distinguishing it from siblings like modify_pdf_content or read_pdf_structure. The verb 'extract' and specific resource 'hyperlinks and clickable URIs' are unambiguous.

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 recommends using the tool to inventory links before or after modifications, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied sibling tools.

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