utils

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP verbs and endpoints (POST /utils/markdown-to-richtext, GET /config/form/:config_type) and required parameters, which is useful context, but it says nothing about auth needs, whether the POST conversion is side-effect-free, error behavior, or return format.

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 front-loaded with the action list and scannable per-action (endpoint, required params, behavior). The endpoint paths are somewhat redundant for an agent but earn their place as routing detail; there is no filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should carry more: it covers what each action takes but not what it returns or how errors surface. For a two-action utility tool it is adequate, but the return-value contract for markdown_to_richtext is left undefined.

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, and it largely does: it names both action values, states which parameter each action requires, and gives example config_type values ('vulnerability', 'project'). It adds no format or type detail for the markdown parameter, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 tool name 'utils' is a category, not a purpose, but the action list gives specific verbs and resources for each action ('Convert markdown to AF rich text format', 'get_form_config' with its endpoint). An agent can tell what each action does without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the domain siblings, though the grab-bag utility scope is implicit.

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?

'Use before setting description/recommendation/note fields' gives explicit when-to-use guidance for markdown_to_richtext. get_form_config has no usage guidance beyond its required parameter, and there is no when-not or alternative-selection advice for either action.

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