convert_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only states generic I/O ('Reads input file and writes output file'). This is undercut by the schema's dry_run default of true, meaning the tool previews by default and does NOT write unless dry_run is set to false — a behavior the description's 'writes output file' misleadingly implies. No disclosure of overwrite behavior, error handling, or side effects.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The verb and format list are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the input/output behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the core function is adequately described. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of any note about the dry_run default (preview-only unless dry_run=false) and lack of clarity about whether write mode overwrites existing files leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 100%, so every parameter (input_path, output_path, input_format, output_format, dry_run) is already documented in the schema. The description's format list merely mirrors the enums and adds no new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Convert'), a resource (data formats), and enumerates the exact supported formats (JSON, YAML, TOML, XML, CSV, INI). This makes it unmistakably distinct from siblings like fix_json, checksum, and batch_rename, none of which perform cross-format conversion.

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 usage context is implied by the phrase 'Convert between data formats' — an agent can infer this is the go-to tool for format translation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion; notably, no distinction from fix_json (repair vs. convert) is stated, and no alternative tools are named.

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