list_supported_formats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool lists extensions and reports optional cloud feature configuration; both are non-mutating observational behaviors. While 'read-only' is not stated verbatim, the wording and zero-parameter schema make the tool's safe, informational nature clear.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the tool's primary output and the second gives the practical invocation context. The information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-annotation introspection tool, this is almost complete: it explains what is returned conceptually and when to use it. The only minor gap is that the exact shape of the response is unspecified, but no output schema exists and the tool's simplicity makes that a small omission.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema shows. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not a concern for this tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List the file extensions this server can convert' and also reports configured cloud features. This clearly differentiates it from sibling conversion tools like convert_to_markdown or save_summary, which perform transformations or persistence rather than introspection.

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 provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this if a conversion fails as unsupported.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not enumerate when not to use it or explicitly contrast it with alternatives.

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