pdf_extract_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool extracts text but doesn't describe how it handles errors (e.g., invalid files, unsupported PDFs), performance traits (e.g., speed, memory usage), or output format (e.g., plain text, structured data). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic function.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds optional functionality. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of PDF text extraction (which can involve encoding issues, layout preservation, etc.), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the extracted text looks like (e.g., raw text, with formatting markers), potential limitations, or error handling. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions 'optionally specify page range,' aligning with the startPage and endPage parameters in the schema. However, it doesn't provide additional context like format details or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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: 'Extract text content from a PDF file.' It specifies the verb ('extract') and resource ('text content from a PDF file'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pdf_extract_pages or pdf_info, which might also involve text extraction or provide text-related information.

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 provides minimal guidance: 'Optionally specify page range.' It implies usage for text extraction but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pdf_extract_pages (which might extract pages as files) or pdf_info (which could provide metadata including text summaries). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools mentioned.

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