pandoc_convert

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it runs under --sandbox, so the document cannot read other files or execute filters — a real constraint an agent must know. However, it omits what happens to an existing output_path (overwrite?) and any permission/engine requirements beyond the PDF note.

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 tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the safety constraint second. The parenthetical format list ends with an ellipsis, suggesting truncated or incomplete enumeration, which slightly weakens precision.

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 not be explained, and the sandbox note covers safety. Still missing for a file-writing conversion tool: overwrite behavior on output_path, format-inference defaults, and where the LaTeX requirement bites — gaps the agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It hints at from/to formats and adds the PDF/LaTeX caveat, but never explains input_path vs output_path semantics (must input exist, is output created/overwritten) or what happens when from_format/to_format are null (inferred from extension).

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+resource ('Convert documents with pandoc') and enumerates concrete formats (docx, html, md, rst, pdf), so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like convert_data or script_to_markdown, which prevents 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?

The format list plus the 'pdf output needs a LaTeX engine' note imply the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-something-else guidance or prerequisite framing (e.g., 'use script_to_markdown for fenced code extraction'). Usage is only inferable.

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