convert_to_markdown

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

The description claims 'Read-only', but annotations set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, creating a direct contradiction. This severely undermines an agent's ability to predict side effects, and the description fails to clarify actual behavior beyond the contradiction.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. The phrase 'Read-only' is redundant given the first sentence implies no modification, and contradicts annotations, but overall structure is efficient.

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 behavior for multiple document types, which is helpful, but completely omits details about output format (beyond stating Markdown) and fails to resolve the behavioral contradiction. For a single-parameter tool, it is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about per-type handling but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool converts a document to clean Markdown format, specifying the verb, resource, and output format. It also distinguishes behavior for different input types, making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (for structured, readable output) and explains per-format handling. However, it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance or alternatives, which slightly reduces its utility.

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