Text to mind map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the return type ('Markdown outline') and the export side-effect path, which is the key behavioral fact. One minor tension: export writes an HTML file to disk while readOnlyHint=true, but that is a local artifact rather than remote state mutation, so it is not a real contradiction.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the operation stated first and the export/escalation path last. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 correctly fills that gap by naming the return format and the HTML alternative. Combined with a fully documented 8-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it, though the internal shape of the outline is left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents mode, text, title, export, language, maxDepth, outputPath and maxChildren in detail. The description only restates the export flag and never adds syntax or defaults beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Turn text or Markdown into a mind-map outline') and immediately scopes the input type ('content you already have') which implicitly separates it from url_to_mindmap and pdf_to_mindmap. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete input examples (draft, notes, transcript, document chunk) and explicitly routes the export case to the sibling ('pass export: true, or call export_mindmap afterwards'). It lacks an explicit when-not statement, but the 'content you already have' framing covers that implicitly.

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