get_pdf_page_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content but does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only), required permissions, error handling, or performance implications. The behavior is generally safe (read operation) but incomplete.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return value but lacks details on the format (e.g., JSON structure, reference types) and error conditions. It is adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for full autonomous use without schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters; it focuses on the return value. The schema already explains filePath, pageNumber, and maxDepth adequately.

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 ('Return') and the specific resource ('a page's inherited Resources plus Fonts, XObjects, Annots, and related resource references'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pdf_page_tree or get_pdf_content_stream, which focus on different aspects of PDF pages.

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 implicitly indicates use when page resources are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pdf_object_structure or list_pdf_objects. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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