get_supported_formats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The use of '查询' (query) implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is the essential behavioral trait. It does not disclose other aspects like permissions or dependencies, but for a simple lookup tool this is acceptable, and there is no contradiction 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 a single, short sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the filtering capability. There is no redundant information; every word contributes to understanding the tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool queries: supported formats, conversion paths, and engines, and mentions filtering. It lacks explicit return format details, but the content is clear enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. A slightly richer description covering response structure would make it complete, but the current level is sufficient given the complexity.

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 schema has 50% description coverage: 'format' has a description, 'category' does not. The description adds meaning for 'category' by explicitly stating it can filter by category, and the 'format' parameter is already described in the schema. Overall, the description partially compensates for the missing schema description of 'category', but does not go beyond that.

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 function: querying supported formats, conversion paths, and available engines, with filtering by category. The verb '查询' (query) combined with the resource makes it distinct from the sibling conversion tools, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the conversion siblings like convert_media or check_dependencies. However, the read-only 'query' verb and the tool's name imply it is used to discover conversion capabilities before performing conversions, so usage is somewhat implied but not detailed.

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