convert_data

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the psd1 dependency on pwsh with restricted language mode (no code execution) and the XML @attr/#text mapping convention, which the agent cannot infer elsewhere. It clarifies that file writing only occurs when output_path is supplied, consistent with readOnlyHint=false; it does not mention overwrite behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences with the format list front-loaded and no filler. The telegraphic fragments ("Provide either path or text.") are efficient but slightly clipped, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

A 5-parameter conversion tool with an output schema, so return values need no explanation; the description covers input sourcing, format inference, output destination, and the psd1/XML edge cases. It does not address precedence when both path and text are supplied, nor overwrite semantics for output_path.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains path vs text as alternatives, that from_format is inferred from the extension when omitted, and what output_path does. Only to_format is left implicit (inferred from the format list) and the accepted format strings are not given as exact tokens.

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 enumerates the exact source/target formats, so the agent knows precisely what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling pandoc_convert, which handles overlapping territory, so it stops short of a 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?

"Provide either path or text" and "With output_path the result is written there; otherwise it is returned" give clear decision rules for how to invoke it. It never names an alternative (e.g. pandoc_convert) or states when not to use it, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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