list_supported_formats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool lists formats, but does not disclose whether this requires pandoc to be installed, what the return format looks like (e.g., a list of strings or a JSON object), or whether it can be called safely without side effects. This is a notable gap for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded Chinese sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. Every word is informative and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 simple parameterless list tool, the description is nearly complete. It does not specify the output format, and no output schema exists to cover that, but the expected behavior (returning a list of format names) is strongly implied. The low complexity offsets the minor omission.

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 input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed because there is nothing to configure. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 '列出 pandoc 支援的所有格式' clearly identifies the action (list), the resource (all formats supported by pandoc), and distinguishes this tool from the conversion and installation-checking siblings. It is specific and 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 makes the usage context clear: it is the tool for discovering which formats pandoc supports. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling names (convert_markdown_to_word, etc.) imply a distinct purpose, so no conflict or exclusion is needed.

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