pdf_info

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. While 'Get PDF metadata' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state this, nor does it address potential errors (e.g., invalid file paths, corrupted PDFs), performance characteristics, or output format. The description lacks details on what happens if metadata fields are missing or how dates are formatted.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get PDF metadata') and immediately lists the specific data retrieved. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it 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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, read-only operation) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it fails to fully compensate by not explaining the return format (e.g., structured object vs. text), error handling, or edge cases like missing metadata fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'file' clearly documented as 'Path to the PDF file'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as file format requirements or path resolution rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Get PDF metadata') and enumerates the exact resources retrieved (page count, title, author, creator, creation date, file size). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pdf_extract_text or pdf_set_metadata by focusing on metadata extraction rather than content manipulation or modification.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions (e.g., encrypted PDFs), or comparisons to sibling tools like pdf_set_metadata for setting metadata or pdf_extract_text for content extraction.

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