from_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job. It discloses defaults (author, home, out, base_dir), special behaviors (footer placeholders, force overwrites, allow_remote), and states that output includes metadata plus an inline file. However, it omits side effects like file creation details, error behavior, and any authorization requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a bulleted argument list. Each parameter gets a single line, making it scannable. It is slightly long due to the number of parameters, but every line earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters and mentions the return type, but leaves important context missing. It doesn't specify the structure of 'metadata' or how the 'inline file' is returned, nor does it address error conditions or usage context relative to siblings. An agent might need to probe to understand full invocation behavior.

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%, and the description compensates exceptionally well. It explains every parameter's meaning, provides defaults, and includes specific syntax details (e.g., footer supports {page} and {pages}, out defaults to <output_dir>/<title-slug>.pdf). This goes far beyond the minimal schema titles and gives the agent actionable guidance.

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 description opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Convert Markdown text to a PDF and return metadata plus the inline file.' It names the action (convert), the resource (Markdown text), and the output (PDF plus metadata), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. Though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the name and description already disambiguate from validate_spec and create_pdf.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_pdf or validate_spec. No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision heuristics are provided. The description focuses entirely on parameter meanings and defaults, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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