pdf-reader

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'without reading all content', which hints at performance characteristics, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like what metadata fields are returned, whether file access permissions are required, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main functionality. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what metadata is returned, how errors are handled, or provide sufficient parameter guidance. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks the contextual information needed for effective tool invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'path', and the tool description provides no information about this parameter. The description doesn't explain what 'path' represents (file path, URL, etc.), expected format, or constraints. With low schema coverage and no parameter information in the description, it fails to compensate 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 tool's purpose: 'Get metadata information from a PDF file' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'metadata information from a PDF file'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'without reading all content', which differentiates it from read_pdf and read_pdf_page. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_pdf, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 context through 'without reading all content', suggesting this tool is for lightweight metadata extraction rather than full content reading. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_pdf or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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