extract_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: page delimiters use ``<!-- page N -->`` with 0-based numbering, scanned pages return nothing, and output is capped by the server's page limit. It doesn't state the actual limit, which is the only real gap.

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 tool's purpose and its key distinction from extract_markdown come first. Each later sentence carries necessary information: the page-marker format, the routing for scans, and the parameter meanings. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. It still documents the page-marker delimiters that structure the output, which is the one detail an agent needs. With every parameter covered and the sibling alternatives named, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description has to explain the parameters, and it does. 'path' is documented as the PDF's absolute path on this machine, and 'pages' as the 0-based page numbers to return, omit for the whole document. That adds meaning the schema does not capture.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: the plain-text layer of a local PDF, page by page. It also names the sibling it is not ('use extract_markdown for that'), so an agent can distinguish it from extract_markdown and extract_blocks without opening their schemas.

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?

It states both when to use it and which alternative to use instead: 'No reading-order repair and no structure: use extract_markdown for that.' It also routes the agent to get_metadata for pages with no text layer that are probably scans.

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