list_input_formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds real value beyond them: it states the tool takes no arguments, performs no conversion, and describes the shape of what comes back ('one per line', URL support flag). It stops short of full detail (no mention of pagination or failure modes), so a 4 rather than 5.

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 tight sentences, zero waste. The output content is stated first, then the negative scoping ('converts nothing'), then the routing advice – well front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: extensions listed one per line plus URL acceptance. For a zero-argument, read-only discovery tool 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?

Zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly saying it takes no arguments, so there is nothing further the schema could add.

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 (list the file extensions the server can convert) plus a secondary fact it returns (whether http(s) URLs are accepted). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the convert siblings by noting it 'converts nothing', so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening any schema.

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?

Names both alternatives (`convert_to_markdown`, `convert`) and the exact condition that selects this tool: call it first when unsure whether a file type is supported, or to diagnose a refused URL. Nothing is left to inference.

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