get_pdf_content_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return type (bytes and decoded text) and optional operator parsing, but it omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling (e.g., invalid page number), or performance implications. It does not contradict any annotations since none exist.

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, well-structured sentence of 20 words without any redundancy. Every element earns its place.

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 description provides the high-level purpose but lacks details on parameter interactions (e.g., exclusivity of pageNumber and objectNumber), default values, or the format of return data. Since there is no output schema, agents may need more guidance on what to expect.

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 baseline is 3. The description clarifies the choice between pageNumber and objectNumber and mentions optional operator parsing, but this adds only marginal value beyond the already-described parameters.

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 and specifically states the tool's function: returning PDF content stream bytes and decoded text from either a page number or object number, with optional operator parsing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with document info, objects, structure, page resources, page tree, or listing objects.

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 for retrieving content streams, but it does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over siblings like get_pdf_object or get_pdf_object_structure. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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