pdf_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a genuinely useful non-obvious behavior (operates on encrypted files without a password, returning is_encrypted only), but it omits the read-only/non-destructive safety profile, error behavior on corrupt files, and any cost/perf notes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and return fields, then the encryption caveat. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work by listing what is returned and how encryption is handled. It is nearly complete for a simple inspection tool; the only gap is the safety/destructiveness profile and unmentioned input_path semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for the password parameter by explaining it is not required to read encryption status, but input_path is left entirely unexplained and the password's exact effect on other returned fields is not clarified.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and resource (PDF info) and enumerates the exact fields returned (page count, file size, version, encryption status, metadata). This clearly separates it from extract_text or manipulation siblings, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest siblings get_metadata and check_pdf.

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?

Implied usage for inspecting a PDF without modifying it, and it gives one useful conditional ('works on an encrypted file without a password'). However, it never states when to pick this over get_metadata or check_pdf, which overlap heavily in the sibling list.

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