Render markdown

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that relative upload links and issue references are expanded to absolute URLs, which goes beyond the annotations.

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, focused sentence that conveys the primary function and a hint about its utility. No wasted words.

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 tool is simple, annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters. The description explains the purpose and typical usage context. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., rendered HTML), which could be useful since there is no output schema.

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%, with each parameter already described clearly. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why references are expanded, but the schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Renders') and resource ('markdown'), with a concrete outcome ('expanded to absolute URLs'). It distinguishes itself from other GitLab tools by focusing on markdown rendering, not on CRUD operations.

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 a clear use case ('handy before downloading attachments') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide exclusions. Context is present, but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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