IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is not a read-only operation, which aligns with the conversion action. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—no details about error handling, performance, or output format. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict but adds minimal value.

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 a single, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (one parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the conversion quality (e.g., basic vs. full Markdown support) or output format, which could be helpful for an agent. With no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps.

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%, with the 'html' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 'Convert HTML to Markdown' clearly states the verb (convert) and resource (HTML to Markdown), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'convert_markdown_to_html' by specifying the direction of conversion. However, it lacks specificity about the scope or quality of conversion, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., valid HTML input), when not to use it (e.g., for complex HTML with tables or images), or compare it to related tools like 'format_html' or 'decode_html'. Usage is implied from the name alone.

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