Record generated PDF

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

The description adds the behavioral constraint 'never return contents', which goes beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. However, the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., what exactly 'record' does, whether it overwrites), nor does it explain behavior for non-existent 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?

Two short, focus-packed sentences. The first states the primary purpose, the second adds a critical behavioral exclusion. No filler or redundancy. Every word contributes.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the core: recording metadata for an existing local PDF and not returning contents. However, it omits details like whether recording is idempotent, how the file is located, or any error handling. The output schema likely explains returned data, but preconditions and side effects are unclear.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the file_path must point to 'one existing generated local PDF', implying constraints on existence and type. While beneficial, it could be more precise (e.g., absolute/relative path, allowed file extensions).

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 ('Record metadata') and the resource ('one existing generated local PDF'). It distinguishes from potential content-returning tools by adding 'never return contents'. However, the verb 'Record' is somewhat vague, not fully specifying whether it creates, updates, or stores a catalog entry.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like catalog_record_printed or catalog_query. The phrase 'never return contents' hints at one differentiator, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction. The description relies on tool names and implicit understanding.

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