Convert instruction files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return shape ('file paths + contents and a shell command') and, importantly, that it 'writes nothing' — a non-destructive, preview-style operation. It doesn't clarify whether the generated shell command is what actually performs the symlink/import side effect, which is the one residual ambiguity.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the conversion scope and closed with the output/write behavior. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return payload and the no-write guarantee. A reader can call it correctly; only the interaction between the link parameter and the returned shell command is left to inference.

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 75%, with descriptions on text, source, and link, and an enum that makes targets self-evident. The description adds nothing parameter-level (no explanation of when to pick link=symlink vs import, and no description for targets); baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('agent instructions') and enumerates the concrete source file formats (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, .mdc rules, .cursorrules, GEMINI.md) and target tools. This clearly separates it from convert_mcp_config (config, not instruction files) and from detect_agent_configs.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of source formats makes it obvious when the tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use this when / don't use this when' and no mention of the sibling tools (e.g. detect_agent_configs to find the files first). The 'writes nothing' clause hints at a dry-run workflow but doesn't state it as guidance.

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