pdf_split

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the core action. It does not mention that this is a cloud API operation, whether it creates output files asynchronously, requires an API key, or any side effects. The reference link hints at external details but is not inlined, leaving the agent without key context.

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 front-loaded, with a single clear sentence followed by a reference link. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the reference link could be considered extraneous but is harmless. The structure effectively conveys the primary purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description only covers the basic split action. It fails to explain how output files are returned or stored, whether the operation is synchronous, or any job-related behavior that might be inferred from sibling tools like wait_job_completion. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about the workflow.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of all 7 parameters with detailed descriptions, including examples for the 'pages' parameter. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond restating the split method, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Split' and clearly identifies the resource 'a PDF' and the outcome 'multiple PDF files'. It also specifies the method 'using page indexes or page ranges', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pdf_merge or pdf_to_text.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. While the purpose is obvious, there is no explicit guidance on replacement scenarios or exclusions, which is missing for a tool with many PDF-related siblings.

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