convert_pdf_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses partial-failure handling (errors are logged and processing continues), the default output location, recursive behavior, and the return dictionary shape. This gives an agent a clear picture of non-obvious behavior.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. No fluff or repetition of schema metadata.

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 tool has no output schema, so documenting the return value is essential, and the description provides the full dict shape including converted, errors, and total_found. Combined with clear parameter semantics, recursion behavior, and failure handling, nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fully does. Every parameter gets a meaningful explanation: input_dir, output_dir with default and recursion subfolder replication, recursive default True, and ocr_lang with a pointer to the sibling tool for Tesseract language details.

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 a specific action ('Convierte todos los PDF de una carpeta a archivos Markdown') and distinct resource scope: all PDFs in a directory, versus a single PDF. It also explicitly references the sibling convert_pdf_to_markdown, making the batch-vs-single distinction obvious.

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 the appropriate use case: batch conversion of directories, applying the same logic as convert_pdf_to_markdown per PDF. It gives defaults and behavior for recursion and output paths, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool in favor of the single-file sibling.

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