convert_rich_text

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions output is 'HTML safe for SN fields' and auto-detection, but does not disclose error handling, size limits, or behavior with unsupported formats. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by supported formats and return info. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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, but description briefly notes return type (converted HTML). Parameters are well covered. Minor gap: does not specify output structure (e.g., array of converted values). Still sufficient for typical use.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining hint="auto" for auto-detection and clarifying that 'value' can be ADF object, HTML string, or plain text, going beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool converts rich text to ServiceNow-compatible HTML, specifies supported formats (Jira ADF, Salesforce HTML, plain text), and mentions auto-detection via hint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are unrelated.

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?

Description implies use when needing to convert rich text for ServiceNow, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Among many siblings, none directly compete, so context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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