get_source_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it reveals the operation is a render of an existing page (non-mutating), gives the valid dpi band (50–300) and a quality/perf tradeoff hint (~200 for dense schematics). It stops short of describing the returned artifact format or any cost/latency implications.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose and payoff front-loaded, then parameter guidance in a compact clause-per-parameter rhythm. No filler and nothing repeated from the name.

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 3-parameter render tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essentials: valid source tags, page convention, dpi range. The one remaining gap is the shape of the return value (image type/format) and any failure mode for out-of-range pages.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description documents all three parameters: the allowed source tags (INST, ELEC, USER, EXP1, EXP2, COOL, FAN), the page numbering convention tied to KB citation syntax, and the dpi range with guidance. This more than compensates for the bare schema, which has no enums or property descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Render one page of an original PDF'. The qualifier 'so you can check a citation or read a schematic yourself' pins down the intent, and the contrast with the text-oriented siblings (get_source_page_text, list_source_documents) is implicit but discernible from 'Render'.

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?

Clearly indicates when to reach for it: verifying a citation or inspecting a schematic visually. The '[ELEC p.40] -> source=ELEC, page=40' example turns a usage rule into something directly actionable. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_source_page_text instead, which keeps it below a 5.

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