carrel_convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful behavior beyond schema: text targets return converted content inline with a 1 MiB cap, which tells the agent when to expect a payload versus a file on disk. However, it never says the tool writes an output file (only the schema's force/out_dir hints at it), nor what happens on unsupported or failed conversions, nor whether conversion is lossy — gaps that matter for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return-value caveat immediately after. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return behavior — it does for text targets but says nothing about what non-text targets yield (presumably a written file path). Combined with no annotations and five parameters, an agent still lacks the write/destructive framing and failure-mode information needed. The 1 MiB cap is the one real addition over structured fields.

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 five parameters including the full target-type list, the overwrite behavior of force, and the default for out_dir — baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states; the 1 MiB cap is about the return value, not a parameter.

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 and resource — "Convert a file to another supported type" — which is unambiguous and distinct from all listed siblings (search, pack, inspect, diff, redact, etc.), none of which convert. It stops short of naming the boundary explicitly, but no sibling competes for this task.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternatives are referenced. Usage is only implied by the clarity of the verb; an agent must infer that this is the tool for format transformation rather than reading it stated.

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