batch_convert

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 action without disclosing whether files are modified in place, what output is returned, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a conversion 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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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?

With no annotations or output schema, the description leaves critical context unexplained, such as the output format, whether files are overwritten, and how options affect conversion. Given the tool's complexity (nested options, recursive flag), this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 schema provides descriptions for most parameters (75% coverage), including directory, pattern, recursive, and nested option properties. The description adds no parameter details, but the schema already covers the essentials, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Batch convert markdown files in a directory' clearly uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'batch' and 'directory' modifiers distinguish it from sibling tools like convert_text, convert_file, and convert_url. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 phrase 'in a directory' implies this tool is for directory-level batch conversion, providing clear context for when to use it over single-file or URL tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, stopping short of a full 5.

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