pdfhell_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that API keys come from environment variables and are never logged, and it describes the return format (dict with pass_rate, CIs, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., cost, read-only nature) beyond mentioning an estimated cost.

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 (~130 words) and well-structured with Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, from purpose to parameter details to return structure. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently covers all necessary 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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 params, no enums, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter details, return structure, and environment variable setup, enabling an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description adds significant meaning for all three parameters: model format with examples, suite options with values and defaults, and workers as parallel API requests. This far exceeds the schema's minimal information.

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 runs the 'pdfhell adversarial-PDF benchmark' against a vision model. It specifies the verb 'run' and the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like pdfhell_make (which likely creates benchmarks) and eval_* tools.

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 detailed parameter usage (model format, suite options, workers) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage through context but lacks direct guidance on alternatives.

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