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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real value: path allowlist checks, no cookie/browser auth flags, no generated memory cards, and untrusted source labeling. It still omits what happens on a blocked path, whether existing files are overwritten, and what failure looks like, so the safety profile is only partially disclosed.

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 tight sentences with the deliverable front-loaded and the default stance second. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully names the two artifacts it writes, which covers the return-value gap. However, for a write tool with no annotations it does not address overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or error handling, leaving a mutation with meaningful unresolved questions.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no format or syntax detail for uri, vault, lang, or tags beyond what the schema provides, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 (capture) and resource (one source) plus the exact outputs produced: Markdown plus an .omd.json manifest in an Obsidian-compatible local vault. It does not name or contrast itself with siblings like convert_to_markdown or inspect_source, so an agent must infer the boundary between capturing and merely converting.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison against convert_to_markdown or inspect_source, which are the obvious alternatives for the same kind of source. 'Capture one source' weakly implies single-source scope, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right pick versus its siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context — output is 'untrusted Markdown', directories become batches, and advanced routes have access requirements — but it omits permissions/auth needs, failure modes, rate limits, and side effects for a tool that touches local files and network sources.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the two following sentences are dense, enumerative run-ons of format acronyms that are hard to parse and partially redundant with the schema.

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 output schema, the description must cover returns, and it does state that content is returned inline when 'output' is omitted. Still, for a tool touching many file types and network routes with no annotations, the disclosure of behavior and failure conditions is thinner than ideal.

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 route list loosely maps to parameters (OCR/PNG-JPG to lang, reels to reel_options, output formats), but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: ingest a URL/file path/directory and convert it into Markdown, with the supported input families enumerated. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like inspect_source or list_supported_formats, though its conversion scope is evident from the route list.

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?

It frames the use case ('for local AI context workflows') and notes that advanced routes are 'public/local-only ... when their source access requirements are met', implying prerequisites. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs an alternative, and no guidance on choosing between this and sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key non-destructive trait ('without converting it') plus that readiness metadata can be included. However, it says nothing about permissions/auth needs, whether the inspection has any side effects, or what the routing output contains, so the side-effect profile is only partially covered.

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 tightly written sentences: the core routing behavior is front-loaded and the optional readiness capability is appended. No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must sketch the return; it does so at a high level (routing decision, optional local readiness from doctor checks). Combined with fully documented parameters, this is nearly complete, though the shape/contents of a routing result remain underspecified.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates the accepted uri forms and the readiness concept but adds no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb (inspect) plus resource (how OMD routes a URL/share blob/file path/directory), and it explicitly contrasts with the sibling convert_to_markdown via 'without converting it'. Clear enough to distinguish from conversion tools, though its relation to the other siblings is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: use this to preview routing instead of converting. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of when an agent should prefer this over convert_to_markdown beyond the single contrast phrase.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it does convey that this is a pure enumeration with no parameters and, by the verb 'List', no mutation. It says nothing about return shape (identifiers, MIME types, count) or that it is safe/read-only, which for a discovery tool is a modest but real gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource named first and the relevant sibling cited; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally indicate the return format (e.g., a list of format names or MIME types). It establishes the tool's role but leaves the agent guessing at the response shape.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline the schema cannot be improved on and the description need not document any inputs. No parameter meaning is required.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('the input forms convert_to_markdown can route'), and it explicitly ties itself to the sibling convert_to_markdown. It is unambiguous what the tool returns, though the term 'input forms' could be tightened (MIME types vs. extensions).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as inspect_source. Usage is only implied by the reference to convert_to_markdown, which the agent must infer means 'call this to discover routeable formats before converting'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses that results are relative paths, deterministic lexical scores, and bounded untrusted evidence snippets. It does not cover permissions beyond the 'allowed vault root' constraint, failure modes, or pagination behavior.

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 tightly written sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded and zero redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 three-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return shape and scope adequately; the only real gap is the undocumented limit parameter and error/permission behavior.

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 67% (query and vault documented, limit undescribed). The description reinforces the vault constraint ('allowed local vault root') and the lexical nature of query, but adds nothing about the limit parameter or score/path formats beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Markdown notes) bounded by scope (under an allowed local vault root), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from convert/inspect/capture/list siblings that do not search note content.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from siblings such as inspect_source. Usage is only inferable from the verb itself.

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