crw_parse_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that scanned/image-only PDFs return a warning with empty markdown, which is useful. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like file size limits, processing time, or error handling.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence provides value, making it highly efficient.

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 5 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary use case and a key limitation. However, it lacks details on output format structure and other format options (e.g., json, summary), leaving some gaps for agents.

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 adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as confirming that contentBase64 must be base64-encoded local file bytes. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 tool's purpose: parsing a PDF document and returning markdown content. It specifies the input format (base64 bytes) and distinguishes itself from sibling scraping/crawling tools by focusing on local file parsing.

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 gives some usage guidance by stating 'Use this for local PDFs that have no URL,' which helps agents decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly exclude URL-accessible PDFs or mention alternative tools, limiting the guidance.

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