convert_to_xmind

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals an absolute-path requirement and the existence of legacy alias parameters, but says nothing about whether an existing output file is overwritten, permission/auth needs, supported size limits, or conversion fidelity — significant gaps for a write-producing 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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with purpose before the caveats. Every sentence carries information: format scope, path constraint, alias note, and alternative tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description resolves the highest-risk ambiguity (four near-duplicate parameters). Remaining gaps are the output path's default/overwrite semantics, which matter given 0% schema coverage and no annotations.

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 coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the otherwise-confusing duplication by labeling source_file/output_file as legacy aliases of the filepath parameters and states the source path must be absolute, but leaves output_filepath behavior (defaults, overwrite, directory requirements) undefined.

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 (convert) and the exact input formats supported (TXT, Markdown, HTML, Word, Excel) plus the output format (XMind). It also routes JSON-topic cases to create_mind_map, so the agent can distinguish this tool from siblings without opening any schema.

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 alternative and the condition selecting it: 'JSON主题请用 create_mind_map'. Also imposes a precondition (absolute source path). It does not cover other near-neighbors like read_xmind_file or translate_xmind_titles, but the main fork is stated.

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