list_supported_formats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a non-destructive read operation (listing), which is sufficient for this simple tool. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., caching, consistency) are disclosed beyond the basic purpose.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description 'List all supported import/export formats' is entirely complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to invoke it. No additional context is necessary.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter semantics, but none are required.

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 'List all supported import/export formats' clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'supported import/export formats', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like import_data and export_data, which perform actual import/export operations.

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 when users need to know available formats for import/export, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any usage exclusions. Given the tool's simplicity, the implicit usage is clear, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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