List formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result set varies by argument, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size, so it adds only modest behavioral value beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the argument-dependent behavior follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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, single-optional-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes adequately. It does not describe the shape or ordering of the returned format list, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single optional parameter is fully documented there, including an example ('pdf') and the omit-to-list-all semantics. The description essentially restates that same guidance, so it earns the baseline 3 without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List supported conversion formats') and clarifies its dual-mode behavior based on whether an argument is supplied. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'list_options', whose scope could plausibly overlap with 'formats', leaving some ambiguity an agent must resolve.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: call with no argument to enumerate all input formats, or with input_format to discover valid conversion targets. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to the sibling 'convert', but the context is unambiguous for this read-only lookup.

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