List conversion options

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 the otherwise-undocumented return contract — exact names, types, and allowed values — which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of any richness about ordering or error behavior, so not a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, and front-loaded with what is returned before the routing instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by stating what the return contains (setting names, types, allowed values), which is the key payload detail for this read tool. Combined with the convert-integration instruction, an agent has enough to call and use it correctly; only edge cases like unknown formats are unaddressed.

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 both params (input_format, output_format) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only alludes to 'a given conversion' and does not add format-syntax or pairing guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 (List) and resource (settings a given conversion accepts) and enumerates what those settings cover: resize, quality, codecs, bitrate, trim, crop. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_formats, which the description implies by scoping to conversion *options* rather than formats.

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 an explicit trigger ('whenever the user asks for anything beyond a plain format change') and an explicit downstream action ('pass what it returns in the convert tool's options object'). It also names the alternative condition — a plain format change does not require this call — so the agent knows both when and when not to use it.

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