MD-DOCX Converter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: output file location (saved alongside input) and return value (Markdown content). However, it doesn't mention error handling, file size limits, format compatibility, or permission requirements, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 zero waste: first states core function, second adds crucial behavioral details (output location and return value). It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently covers additional context without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (file conversion), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and key behaviors but lacks parameter details and some operational constraints, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'path' parameter at all—no details on format, expected input type, or constraints. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema provides, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 specific action (convert), source format (.docx), target format (.md), and distinguishes from siblings like convert_md_file_to_docx (reverse operation) and read/write_docx (different actions). It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 usage context (converting Word to Markdown) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like convert_md_file_to_docx or read_docx. It provides clear operational context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection or exclusions.

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