List all file formats and URL types that inktomd supports for conversion to Markdown. Use this to check whether a specific file type or URL source is supported before attempting conversion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the tool lists supported formats and URL types, implying a read-only operation, and adds context that it is for pre-conversion checking. It does not detail return format, but an output schema exists, so that is not required.
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, with the first sentence stating the core function and the second providing practical usage. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
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?
This is a simple list/discovery tool with no parameters and an output schema. The description fully covers what it lists, why to use it, and how it fits with the conversion workflow, making it complete for its complexity.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the empty schema provides full coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description adds no confusing parameter information.
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 the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all file formats and URL types that inktomd supports for conversion to Markdown.' This distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools like convert_file and convert_url, which perform conversions rather than listing supported inputs.
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 says 'Use this to check whether a specific file type or URL source is supported before attempting conversion,' which provides clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the pre-conversion check role is well implied.
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.
Several tools overlap: convert_url already supports ArXiv and YouTube, making convert_arxiv and convert_youtube redundant. convert_with_metadata duplicates convert_file/convert_url but adds a metadata header. Agents must read descriptions carefully to choose correctly.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: convert_*, count_tokens, list_supported_formats, prepare_for_rag. No mixed conventions or vague verbs exist.
9 tools is well-scoped for a document conversion service. Each tool has a distinct role (file, URL, batch, metadata, token counting, format listing, RAG preparation) without being bloated.
The domain of converting sources to Markdown is thoroughly covered: files, URLs, batch conversion, metadata, token counting, and RAG chunking. The only minor redundancy is the specialized source converters, but the core workflow is complete.
