pandoc_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: pandoc runs in --sandbox mode, so the document cannot read other files or run filters. It omits other relevant behaviors such as whether output is overwritten, how paths are resolved, or what happens on conversion failure.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core action and then the sandbox caveat. The parenthetical format list is slightly scattershot with the trailing ellipsis, but every sentence contributes.

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 needn't be described, but for a four-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description should do much more. It leaves the from/to format parameters, path semantics, and overwrite behavior entirely unexplained.

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 compensate and largely doesn't. It lists format names (docx, html, md, rst, pdf) but never maps them to from_format/to_format, doesn't say whether formats are inferred from file extensions when omitted, and says nothing about input_path or output_path behavior.

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 and resource (convert documents with pandoc) and enumerates supported formats, so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling convert_data tool, which also does conversion of a different kind, so it falls 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?

Usage is implied by the format list and the note that PDF output requires a LaTeX engine, which is a useful prerequisite. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over convert_data, script_to_markdown, or markdown_to_script, and no stated exclusions.

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