Create PDF from Plain Text

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

The description discloses layout behavior—honoring \n, treating blank lines as paragraph breaks, and auto-wrapping long lines—which goes beyond the annotations' readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints. It does not mention output side effects like writing to outputPath or base64 return, but those are covered in the rich parameter schema, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core purpose first and formatting details following. Every sentence adds useful behavioral context, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, but the parameter descriptions are exhaustive, covering defaults, ranges, required conditions (e.g., title for tagged PDF, fontPath for non-Latin). The main description provides the essential plain-text formatting context. Minor context like base64 return or font requirements is fully specified in the schema, so the overall definition is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions carry the semantic load. The tool description's line-break and paragraph information largely duplicates what the text parameter already states, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a PDF from plain text.' It further clarifies behavior with line breaks, paragraph breaks, and auto-wrapping, which sets it apart from siblings like create_markdown_pdf and create_table_pdf based on input format. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of the tool's function.

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 usage: use this when input is plain text, as opposed to markdown or table data, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use it. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself does not give explicit routing or exclusion guidance, so this is implied rather than stated.

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