markdown_to_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses side effects (writing to output_path), input selection, theme overrides, supported Markdown features, and a key limitation (remote image URLs not fetched). It is slightly incomplete on overwrite and failure behavior, but strong overall.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then organized into input modes, theming, and feature support. Each sentence carries useful information without filler or redundancy.

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 five-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotation support, the description fully covers input constraints, parameter semantics, supported features, and limitations. The output schema can handle return details, so the note about returning the written path 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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It covers every one: markdown vs input_path, output_path, theme presets and key overrides, and title. This adds essential meaning that the bare schema cannot provide.

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 first sentence states a specific action ('Convert Markdown into a styled PDF file') and result ('return the path written'), which clearly differentiates it from the echo sibling. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives concrete invocation rules: exactly one of markdown or input_path must be supplied, and output_path is required. It does not explicitly contrast this tool against alias echo, but it provides sufficient context for correct use.

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