check_pandoc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns 'Pandoc status and supported formats' but does not explain what 'status' means (e.g., boolean, error code), how failures are handled, or the exact return structure. Although an output schema exists, the description lacks sufficient behavioral context for an agent to understand side effects or error behavior.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and result. Every sentence adds value, and the structure meets the needs of a simple 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, zero parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about what 'status' entails and how supported formats are returned. For a tool that may be used before other Pandoc operations, slightly more information (e.g., sample return keys) would improve completeness.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check if Pandoc is available and get supported formats.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Pandoc availability and formats'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like convert_with_pandoc_advanced which focus on conversion.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or that it should be called before Pandoc conversion tools. The usage context is only implied (e.g., before converting with Pandoc).

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