macos_image_convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the conversion action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if it overwrites existing output files, handles errors (e.g., invalid paths), requires specific permissions, or has performance constraints. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Convert image to another format') and includes the supported formats in parentheses. There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration—every word serves a clear purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (file mutation with three parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., file overwriting, error handling), usage context, or output details. For a mutation tool, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 fully documents all three parameters (inputPath, outputPath, format) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the format options, but doesn't provide additional context like format-specific considerations or path requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Convert image') and resource ('to another format'), specifying the supported formats. It distinguishes from sibling tools like macos_image_info (inspection) and macos_image_resize (dimension change), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions), compare with other image tools (e.g., macos_image_resize for size changes), or indicate typical workflows. The description only states what it does, not when or why to invoke it.

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