Convert To It

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the conversion runs in the user's browser (not server-side), and the tool returns a link that opens the converter with both formats chosen. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the format clarification is useful, and the browser-side note is a meaningful behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description is complete for a read-only, idempotent check tool with a clear output schema. It explains what the tool does, what the parameters mean, and the key behavioral trait (browser-side conversion). The only minor gap is not describing the output schema's structure, but the output schema exists and the description mentions the link and step count.

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 both parameters (from, to) are already documented with examples. The description adds the context that formats are file extensions like 'heic' or 'jpg', which reinforces but doesn't significantly extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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: checking whether a conversion is possible, how many steps it takes, and getting a link with formats pre-selected. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Convert To It'), and the mention of 'in how many steps' distinguishes it from a simple yes/no check. The sibling tools (list_conversion_targets, search_formats) are clearly different in scope.

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: when you need to verify a conversion between two specific formats and obtain a link. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals and sibling names make the use case clear. The phrase 'Check whether Convert To It can convert...' gives a clear context for use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that results are grouped by number of steps and sorted with direct conversions first, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any edge cases, error behavior, or limitations beyond what the annotations imply. Since annotations carry the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and then adds specific details about grouping and ordering. No wasted words; it is concise and efficient.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is complete. It explains the grouping and sorting of results, and the output schema covers return values. There is no missing information an agent needs to call this tool correctly.

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 already documents the 'from' parameter with a clear example ('png') and its meaning as an extension. The description does not add additional semantics about the parameter, relying on the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds nothing extra for parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('every format Convert To It can convert a given format to'), and adds detail about grouping by conversion steps and ordering. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_conversion (which likely checks a specific conversion) and search_formats (which likely searches formats by name). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage: given a source format, list all possible targets. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over the siblings or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than stated, so it meets the 'implied usage' level.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that results indicate read/write capability, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination behavior, default limit, or how the 'limit' parameter interacts with results, though the schema covers the limit parameter.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and includes the key differentiator (read/write support). It is concise and every part adds 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented. The description covers the search criteria and the read/write capability. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning the 'limit' parameter's effect or the default behavior when query is omitted, but the schema covers those. Overall, it's adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the overall search criteria (extension, name, MIME type, category) and the read/write capability filter, which maps to can_read and can_write. However, it doesn't add much beyond what the schema already provides for individual parameters.

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: searching file formats by extension, name, MIME type, or category, and determining read/write support. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('file formats'), and the mention of read/write capability distinguishes it from a simple format list.

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: when you need to search formats by various criteria and see read/write support. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like check_conversion or list_conversion_targets, but the context signals show siblings, and the description's focus on search and read/write capability provides clear context. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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