Convert Format

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, meaning repeated conversions yield same result. The description confirms this is a non-destructive read/write operation. It does not add behavioral traits like error handling or file overwrite behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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 well-structured with bullet points for supported conversions, making it scannable. It is concise, though the Args section repeats schema info. Could be slightly trimmed, but overall 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?

Given the straightforward tool with complete schema and annotations, the description covers supported conversions adequately. No output schema exists, but return format is implied (converted file). The tool's complexity is low, so completeness is sufficient.

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 parameters are fully documented in schema. The description adds no further semantics beyond listing formats in supported conversions, which is already implied by enums. The optional json_indent parameter is mentioned with default, but schema already provides default and range.

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 files between formats, listing all supported conversions. It specifies the verb 'converts' and the resource 'files between different formats', and includes specific format pairs, distinguishing it from siblings like fc_md_to_html or fc_fix_json.

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 conversion mappings but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling context shows distinct tools for specific operations (e.g., fc_md_to_html for markdown only), and the description implicitly suggests its appropriate context: conversion among listed formats.

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