convert_format

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses substantial behavior: output is re-read and verified for feature count and CRS, specific conversions are refused, and invalid geometry is repaired deterministically with a 'repairs' key. This gives the agent a precise model of side effects and outcomes.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, target-selection, verification, refusals, and repair behavior with no filler. The most important defining behavior is front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational value.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value is covered structurally. The description covers key edge cases and verification behavior that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It falls slightly short of a 5 by not explicitly stating supported input formats or format-specific limitations beyond the two refusals.

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 carries the burden. It adds essential meaning to output_path by stating that the target format is chosen by its extension and enumerates supported formats, but it gives no details about input_path formats or whether they are auto-detected. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but some explicit input semantics are missing.

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 specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('vector dataset'), and immediately identifies the target-selection mechanism (output extension). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling geoprocessing tools like reproject_layer or buffer_layer by focusing purely on format conversion.

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?

It states when to use the tool via the extension-driven target and provides concrete exclusions: shapefile and non-WGS84 GeoJSON conversions are refused, with 'reproject first' implicitly pointing to reproject_layer. It does not explicitly name reproject_layer as the alternative, but the context is clear enough.

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