markdown_format

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the operations performed (table formatting, /toc replacement, TOC refresh) but does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it mutates input, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a transformation 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clear note about options. No redundant or distracting information.

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 description explains the tool's combined behavior and the presence of options, but it lacks crucial context such as the return value (no output schema) and any prerequisites. Given the moderate complexity and the existence of sibling tools, more detail about output would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds 'Use options to control which formatting is applied,' but this adds little beyond what the schema already states. It does not elaborate on parameter syntax or precedence.

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 'Format markdown for human readability' and specifies it combines table formatting, /toc marker replacement, and TOC refresh. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like markdown_format_tables and markdown_refresh_toc, which handle individual 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 usage when multiple formatting operations are needed ('Combines ... in one operation') and mentions options, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. No alternatives are named.

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