pdf_split

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool's actions (splitting/extracting) but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it modifies the original file, handles errors, requires specific permissions, or produces output files with specific naming conventions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for a mutation tool. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output specifics, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'pages' parameter is optional and that omission triggers individual page splitting, but this is also hinted in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('split', 'extract') and resource ('PDF'), and distinguishes it from siblings like pdf_merge (combines) or pdf_delete_pages (removes). It explicitly mentions two modes: extracting specific pages or splitting into individual pages.

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 when to use this tool (to split PDFs into separate files or extract pages) but doesn't explicitly compare it to alternatives like pdf_extract_pages (which might overlap in functionality) or provide guidance on 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.