maket_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: headless Chromium rendering at true mm size, output to EXPORTS_DIR/<doc>.pdf, inlined Charte CSS for identical fonts/tokens, and the semantics of the rows parameter. It does not explicitly mention file overwrite behavior, but the provided detail is strong.

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 well-structured with a clear 'When to use' intro, a behavior paragraph, and a bullet-like list for parameters. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary but every sentence earns its place, and critical information is front-loaded. It earns a 4, not 5, due to minor redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, rendering details, output location, parameter meanings, and prerequisites. It is thorough and self-contained, leaving few open questions for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains DPI presets (screen/print/hd) with numeric values, and elaborates on rows values (preview/current/all/template) with practical examples like mail merge. This enriches the bare schema definitions.

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 explicitly states 'export a document to PDF for sharing or print' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool maket_preview by noting that for a single-page raster (PNG), maket_preview snapshot should be used instead.

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 leads with 'When to use:' and explicitly names the alternative tool (maket_preview) for a different use case. It also advises checking the cursor first with maket_collection action=cursor when using collection-bound pages, providing clear situational guidance.

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