convert_ebook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds a positive trait (preserves chapters, metadata, cover), but omits critical side effects: whether output files are created and overwritten, what happens if output_path is omitted, whether input files are required to exist, and any error or rate-limit behaviors. The preservation claim is useful but insufficient for a conversion tool that writes files.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose (e-book conversion) and immediately lists supported formats and preservation guarantees. There is zero wasted wording, making it easy to scan and parse quickly.

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 moderate-complexity tool with a nested options object, the description is minimally complete. It covers the primary formats and a key behavior (preservation) but lacks details about default output behavior, file system interactions, or prerequisites. While the schema covers parameters, the description does not address runtime expectations, making it 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 description coverage is 75%, meaning the schema already documents most parameters and sub-options clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond listing format options, which are already in the output_format property. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate for any gaps or add value over the schema.

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's purpose: converting e-books between specified formats (EPUB/MOBI/AZW3/FB2/PDF/TXT/HTML/DOCX) while preserving chapters, metadata, and covers. The verb '电子书转换' (e-book conversion) is specific and the format list distinguishes it from generic document converters like convert_document or convert_pdf. However, it doesn't explicitly state it converts 'from' and 'to' these formats, leaving it implied rather than explicit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives (e.g., convert_document for non-ebook formats) or any conditions that would make this tool inappropriate. The agent must infer that this is for e-book formats based on the listed extensions, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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