batch_convert_files

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

There are no annotations, so the description alone must disclose side effects and behavioral details. It only says files are converted; it does not state whether the operation creates new files, overwrites existing ones, modifies the open document, or has other side effects. It also does not explain the relationship between doc_id and src_files.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a short argument list. Every piece adds some value, though the format could be slightly richer without becoming verbose.

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?

The description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool confidently. It does not explain when to choose this tool over single-format converters, how src_files and dest_files correspond, what happens with a null src_files or dest_files, or what the output looks like. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden for return values, but the operational gaps remain significant.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by giving each parameter a meaningful one-liner: doc_id is tied to open_document, src_files and dest_files are path lists, and format is a target format string. It does not explain null/optional behavior or the pairing between source and destination files, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 a specific action ('Batch convert files between formats') and names the involved formats (HWP, HWPX, PDF, DOCX). It is broad enough to cover multiple formats but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like convert_to_pdf or convert_to_hwpx, so it falls just 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as convert_to_pdf or convert_to_hwpx. The word 'Batch' implies a multi-file scenario, but the description does not state this or any exclusions.

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