Show the user's default paper size and orientation preferences (set on their account page). Useful when the user hasn't specified pageSize/orientation explicitly — call this to honor their defaults instead of using A4/Portrait blindly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that the preferences come from the account page, but does not detail the response format or side effects. With strong annotations, this is sufficient.
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 sentences, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it shows and where from, the second explains when to use it. No wasted words.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent the purpose, use case, and why it's important, without needing further information.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description need not explain them. It correctly omits any parameter information, as schema coverage is 100%.
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 shows the user's default paper size and orientation preferences, specifying the source (account page) and the context. This distinguishes it from other tools like list_all_templates or convert_document.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user hasn't specified pageSize/orientation explicitly, to honor defaults instead of blindly using A4/Portrait. This provides clear guidance and an alternative approach.
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.