convert_notebook

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

No annotations provided, and description only says 'convert.' Does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether it modifies the notebook. Minimal behavioral info.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded key info. However, omission of parameter details makes it efficient but incomplete.

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 legacy status and existence of output schema, the description minimally covers conversion and guidance. But lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details, making it incomplete for uninitiated agents.

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 0% and description adds nothing about parameters `path` or `output_format`. Fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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?

Clearly states 'Convert a notebook into markdown, LaTeX, plain text, or Wolfram code' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes itself from sibling `read_notebook()` by marking as legacy.

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 tells when to use: only if need legacy/narrower workflow, otherwise prefer `read_notebook()`. No ambiguity.

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