Tool Split Pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal mutual exclusivity of ranges/every_n and that files are produced per range/page-group, but says nothing about side effects like overiting, file creation location, or whether the source PDF is modified.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and uses concrete examples. No filler.

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 core splitting behavior is covered and output schema exists, but with no annotations and five params, the holostic description misses important operational details such as what out_dir/overwrite do and what the output files are called. This is adequate but not complete.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate. It explains the ranges and every_n formats and their exclusivity, which helps, but it leaves path, out_dir, and overwrite semantically unexplained.

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 names the operation ('拆分 PDF') and illustrates both split modes with concrete syntax, which unambiguously identifies this as the splitting tool among siblings like merge/rotate. It goes beyond the tautological title.

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?

It includes some parameter usage guidance ('二者二选一' for ranges/every_n) but never addresses when to choose this tool over siblings or states exclusions/alternatives. The context is mostly about mode selection, not tool selection.

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