scobees_markdown_vorschau

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses the most important behavioral trait: it does not persist anything, so it is safe to call repeatedly. It does not cover what happens with invalid Markdown, whether output is truncated, or how the generated 'Bausteine' are structured, which matters given no output schema.

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?

One tight sentence with the preview/non-persistence qualifier placed immediately after the action. Nothing extraneous, nothing buried.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core contract (convert, don't save, return building blocks). It falls short on the return shape and on failure behavior, which the absent output schema leaves entirely to prose.

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% for the single 'markdown' parameter, so the schema offers only 'type: string'. The description mentions Markdown but adds no constraints such as whether full documents or fragments are expected, or which Serlo constructs are supported.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Wandelt Markdown testweise in das Serlo-Format um') plus the preview scope ('ohne etwas zu speichern'). 'Testweise' and 'ohne zu speichern' implicitly separate it from the many create_/update_ siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 non-persisting preview nature implies the use case (check conversion before committing via scobees_create_aufgabe or similar), but the description never states when to reach for it versus the actual create tools. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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