List only the user's custom-uploaded Word templates. Use this when the user asks about their own templates ('show me my templates', 'do I have a letterhead?'). Custom templates are referenced by UUID, not name, when calling convert_document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeDetails | No | Include template details like available page sizes and orientations (default: false) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context about UUID referencing but does not elaborate on other behaviors like rate limits or auth needs. Still, it adds meaningful insight beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value.
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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and a behavioral pointer. No missing elements.
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 coverage is 100% with the includeDetails parameter fully described. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so 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 it lists 'only the user's custom-uploaded Word templates', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_all_templates and list_builtin_templates by narrowing to custom templates.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user asks about their own templates' with example queries. Also provides a key tip about UUID referencing when calling convert_document, helping the agent avoid misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: credit management, conversion, estimation, template listing/details/recommendation, validation, and settings. Even the three list tools are clearly differentiated by scope (all, built-in, custom). No ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_credit_balance, list_all_templates, validate_markdown). No mixing of styles or vague verbs.
With 10 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a document conversion server. Each tool addresses a necessary step in the conversion workflow without being overengineered or sparse.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: credit checks, cost estimation, markdown validation, template discovery (all/built-in/custom), details, recommendations, conversion, and default settings. No obvious gaps for the intended use case.