list_supported_formats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful, but the description does not address output structure, whether the list is static or dynamically computed, or whether any authentication or access requirements exist. For a simple listing tool this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the tool's exact purpose and scope 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?

For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the type of information returned. The only minor gap is that it does not specify the format of the returned list, but this is largely self-evident from the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that the returned data includes both supported formats and their conversion capabilities, which defines what the tool exposes without needing any input.

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 verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all supported document formats'), and the additional scope ('their conversion capabilities'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools convert_document and can_convert, which clearly perform conversion or check convertibility rather than enumerate supported formats.

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 implies that this tool should be used when an agent needs to discover which document formats are supported and what conversions are possible. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over can_convert or convert_document, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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