List document conversions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the list comes directly from documents.js's DocumentConverter port, establishing authoritative provenance, and clarifies that it is the definitive source of truth for accepted and rejected format pairs. This adds context beyond a mere list.

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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds valuable provenance context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description fully covers the tool's purpose, provenance, and relationship to convert_document. It is complete without needing to describe return values or parameter details.

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 schema coverage is 100% by virtue of an empty schema. The description correctly provides no parameter information, matching 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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the exact resource: every (source, target) format pair convert_document actually supports. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by framing itself as the authoritative reference for convert_document, contrasting with convert_document itself which performs conversions.

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 strongly implies usage: consult this tool to learn which format pairs convert_document accepts, making it a natural pre-flight check before calling convert_document. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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