md_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key side effect ('Writes a .md file under MARKITDOWN_OUTDIR') and output characteristics ('pure Markdown'), but it doesn't mention default overwrite behavior, potential errors, or side effects of openInSublime beyond what the schema says. The Sublime-specific note adds useful context but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 three sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The second and third sentences explain the output location and format purpose without excessive fluff. Minor redundancy exists between 'Writes a .md file' and the outputPath/MARKITDOWN_OUTDIR param, but overall it is efficient.

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?

The core scenario (converting text or file to Markdown) is covered, but the description lacks guidance on sibling tool selection, no output schema means return behavior is never explained, and overwrite defaults are only in schema. For a tool with 7 optional parameters and no annotations, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats 'or outputPath' and mentions MARKITDOWN_OUTDIR, but it does not add meaningful semantic value beyond the well-documented parameters. No compensation is needed because the schema already carries the parameter explanations.

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 verb ('Convert') and resource ('plain text content or a file') into a specific output ('properly formatted Wiki-ready Markdown'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like md_convert_batch, so it falls short of a 5.

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 this is for converting a single content string or file to Markdown, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over md_convert_batch, md_format, or md_preview. The 'when not using inputPath' note inside the schema adds some context, but the main description lacks direct alternative routing.

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