list_supported_formats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. It explicitly states that the tool returns information about formats and features, implying a read-only query behavior. However, it does not describe the structure of the return data or any potential limitations (e.g., whether the list is exhaustive or dependent on the environment). The stated behavior is simple but adequate for a format-listing tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence ('Returns: Information about supported formats and features') is largely redundant with the first sentence, which slightly reduces its efficiency, but overall it remains appropriately concise for 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 simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It states the tool lists formats and features and returns information about them. It does not explain when to use it, but for a discovery tool with an output schema, this is largely complete.

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 input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to cover. The description correctly does not attempt to document nonexistent parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4 since no compensation is needed.

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 ('List') and resource ('all supported input/output formats and features'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling conversion tools by identifying itself as a capabilities/discovery tool rather than a conversion operation.

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 implies the tool should be used when one needs to know which formats and features are supported, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling conversion tools. The 'List all' phrasing gives some context, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are stated.

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