mcp-pdf-tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Extract') but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if the file is locked or modified), performance characteristics (e.g., speed for large files), error handling, or output format details. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with files.

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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs file operations. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error cases (e.g., invalid file paths or non-PDF files), output details (e.g., text format or truncation behavior), or integration with siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the well-documented schema.

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') and resource ('all text content from a PDF file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pdf_search (which might also extract text but with search filtering) or pdf_word_stats (which analyzes text), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like pdf_extract_pages (which might extract specific pages) and pdf_search (which might filter text), there's no indication of when this general text extraction is preferred, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints beyond the parameters.

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