split_pdf

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention output behavior, file creation, authorization, or side effects. It only states the operation and parameter mapping, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, immediately states purpose and then enumerates the action-specific parameters. Efficiently structured.

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 no annotations or output schema and 8 parameters, this description is too sparse. It omits what the tool returns, how output files are named, and any prerequisites, and it ignores sibling tool differentiation.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage). The description explains that split_action_number is needed for the first two actions, split_sequence for SplitSequence, and split_ranges for SplitRanges, adding essential semantics. However, it leaves output_dir, file_naming, and request_doc_name entirely undefined, so it only partially compensates.

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 'Split a PDF via PDF4me SplitPDF' and enumerates the specific split modes, establishing it as a PDF splitting tool. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like split_pdf_by_text or split_pdf_by_barcode, but the API reference adds specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to choose this tool over alternatives such as split_pdf_by_text or extract_pages_from_pdf. It does give clear instructions for parameter selection based on split_action, but that is operational rather than contextual.

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