locate_in_pdf

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

Annotations do not indicate read-only or destructive behavior, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the requirement for TYPLEAF_SESSION, the coarser resolution for Typst, and the lack of anchors in template bodies — valuable behavioral context. It does not explicitly state it is a read operation, but the nature of 'Find' suggests that without contradicting 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?

The description is two paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose and output. Each sentence adds value: the return format, the file omission, the capability contrast, and the backend/limitations. It is concise without being terse.

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?

For a tool of this complexity, the description covers: what it does, output details (page and bounding box), parameter override behavior, backend differences (SyncTeX vs Typst map), limitations of Typst results, and a required session variable. There is no output schema, so it appropriately explains return values. Missing error handling is minor for this context.

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 covers all parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the return format (PostScript points, v measured from top) and the behavior of omitting `file` to use compile root. This goes beyond the schema's parameter notes and clarifies usage.

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 a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('given source line' in 'compiled PDF'), and the output (page number and bounding rectangles). It also distinguishes itself by noting it is the 'element→page-position capability the source parser cannot provide,' which separates it from source-content tools.

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 gives context for when to use it (when mapping source elements to PDF position) and explicitly contrasts with the source parser. It does not name a specific alternative tool but implies no other tool provides this capability. The mention of the Typst coarse results and template limitations also helps set expectations.

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