read_file_markdown

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the supported input formats and the 'validated against root' security constraint, but says nothing about unsupported formats, size limits, or failure behavior.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the format enumeration and the Markdown outcome are both front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and both the input formats and the root-validation behavior are covered. The only real gap is behavior on unsupported or oversized inputs, which is minor for a simple read-only converter.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the burden is on the description, and 'Validated against root' does hint that rel_path is resolved relative to a workspace root. However, it does not clarify expected path syntax, leading separators, or extension handling, leaving real ambiguity for the single required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (convert) and resource (documents of many formats) with the concrete output (clean Markdown), and the enumerated format list makes the scope unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling read_file, which is the obvious adjacent tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 implies you reach for this when you need Markdown output, but it never states when to prefer it over read_file, read_files_batch, or download_file_raw, nor any when-not condition. No alternative routing is provided.

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