get_supported_formats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation without side effects. For a parameterless getter, this is sufficient; however, it does not specify the exact format of the returned list (e.g., file extensions vs MIME types).

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 a single concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately minimal for a simple list-retrieval tool.

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?

For a 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states exactly what the tool returns (a list of supported formats). Given the simplicity, no additional context is needed.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information needed; the description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe.

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 uses a specific verb '获取' (get) with a clear resource '支持的文档格式列表' (supported document formats list), precisely stating what the tool does. It also clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like convert_document and validate_document, which perform different actions.

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?

While the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, the purpose is self-evident: it provides the list of formats that other tools (convert, validate) would rely on. The context is clear for a simple retrieval operation, though explicit alternatives are not named.

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