List document conversions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the tool reads from documents.js's port, indicating it's a read-only operation, but doesn't detail output structure or performance. It adds value by establishing authority, but leaves some behavioral details (e.g., output format, potential errors) undisclosed.

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, but it is packed with purpose and context. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming the 'definitive source of truth' phrase, which is somewhat redundant with the rest.

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, the description covers the key aspect: what the tool lists and its authoritative source. It doesn't detail the output format, but that's covered by the output schema. The description is adequate for a simple listing tool.

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, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The base for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns (the format pairs), which is the needed semantic context.

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 clearly states the tool lists every (source, target) format pair that convert_document supports, directly tying it to the definitive source of truth. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming convert_document and framing this tool as the reference for convert_document's capabilities.

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 when to use it: to know what convert_document will or will not accept. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it, but the context of the sibling tools and the focus on format pairs make the intended use clear.

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