Convert file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key behaviors: it writes a new file next to the source unless out_path is given, never modifies the source, and returns the new path with row/column counts. It does not cover what happens if out_path already exists or the fidelity loss of xlsx-to-csv conversion, which are minor but relevant gaps.

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, zero filler: trigger/purpose first, then side-effect behavior, then return value. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant info is front-loaded.

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?

The schema fully documents all four parameters, and the description covers purpose, side effects, and return value despite having no output schema and no annotations. Missing details like overwrite behavior when out_path already exists and cross-format fidelity caveats are gaps, but an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and each parameter already has a rich description (extension list, ~ expansion, default sheet selection, out_path constraint). The description merely reinforces the out_path default and source-immutability, adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so 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 (convert) plus resource (a sheet) and the exact format scope (xlsx, csv, json). This clearly distinguishes it from sheet_read/sheet_write and the generic convert/convert_many siblings, so an agent knows immediately which tool handles format 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?

"Call this tool to convert a sheet between excel (xlsx), csv and json" provides a clear trigger condition for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., sheet_read for reading content), so it stops short of a 5.

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