list_supported_formats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it does convey that this is a pure enumeration with no parameters and, by the verb 'List', no mutation. It says nothing about return shape (identifiers, MIME types, count) or that it is safe/read-only, which for a discovery tool is a modest but real gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource named first and the relevant sibling cited; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally indicate the return format (e.g., a list of format names or MIME types). It establishes the tool's role but leaves the agent guessing at the response shape.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline the schema cannot be improved on and the description need not document any inputs. No parameter meaning is required.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('the input forms convert_to_markdown can route'), and it explicitly ties itself to the sibling convert_to_markdown. It is unambiguous what the tool returns, though the term 'input forms' could be tightened (MIME types vs. extensions).

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as inspect_source. Usage is only implied by the reference to convert_to_markdown, which the agent must infer means 'call this to discover routeable formats before converting'.

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