List supported formats

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the exact output content (drivers, extensions, support limitations), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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 two sentences, with the primary purpose and scope front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and every sentence earns its place—the first states what it lists, the second when to call it. No unnecessary detail.

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 simple, parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (drivers, extensions, and support limits). There is nothing missing for an agent to correctly invoke it and interpret the result. Complexity is low, so this is complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100% by default). There is nothing to add about parameters; the description doesn't need to explain any. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional info 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('document formats DeckProbe can inspect'), and specifies the content (drivers, extensions, and where support stops). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like probe and list_targets by focusing on format capabilities rather than probing or target listing.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when you are unsure whether a file type is supported at all.' It doesn't mention alternatives, but the trigger condition is clear and implies that if you have a specific file, you would use probe instead. It could be improved by naming the sibling tools explicitly, but the guidance is sufficient.

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