list_supported_formats

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation, using 'List' which indicates a read-only operation. It adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as whether the formats are returned with descriptions or how they are grouped. With the annotation already covering safety and an output schema present, the description does not contradict or add significant behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence, 'List supported import and export file formats.' It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 the tool has no parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema that likely details the return structure, the description is fully sufficient. It clearly states what the tool lists (supported import/export file formats) and nothing more is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. According to the rubric, with 0 params, the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details to document, so the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps. The schema coverage is effectively complete.

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 'List supported import and export file formats' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('supported import and export file formats'). It clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like import_file/export_file, which actually perform file operations. This is a precise and unambiguous description.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. However, the intended use is implicitly clear: to check which formats are available for import/export. There is no mention of alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the simplicity of the tool makes the usage fairly obvious from the name and context.

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