Import vector file to SVG

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions a dependency (Ghostscript) and page selection, but omits important traits like idempotency, error handling, whether the original file is modified, or if the operation is reversible. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond core functionality.

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 sentences—with the key action front-loaded. Every sentence provides necessary information: supported formats, output quality ('paths preserved'), a prerequisite, and a parameter detail. No wasted words.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it lacks information on optional parameters, return values, error states, or behavior when output_path is omitted. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'page' parameter (selects PDF page, default 0') and implies 'input_path' is the file to import. However, 'output_path' is not explained (e.g., optional, default behavior), and no format info is given beyond the description header. Partial coverage but adds some value.

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 verb ('Import') and the resource ('vector file (PDF, PDF-compatible AI, or EPS)') and the output ('editable SVG with paths preserved'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like convert_image_to_svg by specifying vector formats, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('EPS requires Ghostscript on PATH') and explains the page parameter's function, providing some context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., convert_image_to_svg for raster images) or when not to use it, limiting decision support.

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