convert_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the core conversion action but does not disclose side effects, such as whether output files are overwritten, whether permissions are required, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely creates or modifies files.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and lists supported formats with zero wasted words. It delivers its message efficiently.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested options, two enums) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns or where the output goes, nor does it clarify the role of optional parameters like output_path or source_format. An agent would need to open the schema to understand basic behavior.

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%, and each parameter has a descriptive comment. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond listing supported formats, which are already covered by the enums in the schema. Per calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('Convert a document from one format to another') and lists the exact formats supported (Markdown, HTML, DOCX, PDF, Text). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_supported_formats and can_convert, which are about listing formats and checking convertibility, not performing the conversion.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to use can_convert first, or any contextual conditions. The description merely states the general purpose without any usage context.

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