get_pdf_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verbs 'extract' and 'returns' strongly imply a read-only operation with no side effects. It also discloses the kind of metadata returned, adding transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that the PDF is not modified, though this is a reasonable inference.

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 sentences long and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence contributes useful information without any fluff or 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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately sets expectations by listing the types of metadata returned (title, author, page count, size, dates, security properties). It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents file_path with 100% coverage, providing a full description ('Local path to the PDF file'). The description's 'Provide the file path to the PDF' adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 action ('Extract metadata'), the resource ('a local PDF'), and the expected output (title, author, page count, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on PDF metadata, unlike PDF modification or extraction 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 implies when to use the tool: when you need metadata from a local PDF. It provides clear context but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_image_metadata or mention when not to use it. No exclusions are given, but the PDF-specific focus is clear.

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