convert_to_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that tables become Markdown tables, that image-only pages are skipped rather than erroring, and that output_path changes whether text or a path is returned. It does not cover failure modes for invalid paths or file-size limits, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by per-parameter lines, with the important table-mode detail and the image-only caveat kept short. Every sentence carries information; only slight tightening of the parameter sentences would improve it.

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?

For a three-parameter conversion tool with an output schema, the description covers input types, each parameter's meaning, table handling, and the scanned-page edge case. Nothing critical is missing, though it does not mention error behavior for non-PDF/HTML inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines path as a full path to .pdf/.html, enumerates the three tables modes ('lines' default, 'text', 'off') with their semantics even though the schema declares no enum, and explains output_path's effect. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, with only minor gaps such as what happens for a missing file.

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) and resource (PDF/HTML to Markdown) and constrains the input scope to local text PDFs and saved HTML files. No siblings exist, so no differentiation is needed, and the purpose is unambiguous from the first sentence.

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?

It implies applicability ('local text PDF', 'scanned (image-only) PDF pages have no text and are skipped'), which tells an agent this is not an OCR tool. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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