preview_conversion

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'without actually writing anything' clarifying it's read-only, and describes output content. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but for a preview tool, the description is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence elaborates on output. No unnecessary words.

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 lack of an output schema, the description provides a good overview of the return type. It explains the parameters sufficiently with schema coverage. Could mention expected structure or error states, but overall complete for a preview tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about what the preview shows, but does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It adds marginal value.

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 clearly states the verb 'preview' and the resource 'session conversion', and lists what it shows (message breakdown, tool call stats, compatibility notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'convert_session' which actually perform the 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?

The description implies usage by saying 'without actually writing anything', suggesting it's for safe preview. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'convert_session' or 'convert_by_path', though the context is clear.

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