convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs conversion, supports specific diagram types, supports explicit styling directives, and that outputPath affects response size/token weight. This covers key behavioral expectations reasonably well for a conversion tool, though it doesn't specify failure modes or unsupported Mermaid features.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It lists supported types and style categories efficiently. The style list is slightly long but necessary for an agent to know valid values. No wasted sentences, though the style list could arguably be trimmed or referenced to the sibling tool.

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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: supported diagram types, styling mechanism, style taxonomy, and outputPath guidance. It doesn't explain return format or failure behavior, but the tool is relatively simple. The description is complete enough for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, so both parameters have adequate schema documentation. The description adds value by explaining the styling directive format and providing an example (%{excali: styles: {A: db, B: api}}%). Since the schema already covers parameter meaning well, baseline 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 clearly states the verb (convert), the resource (Mermaid diagram → Excalidraw file in Obsidian format), and explicitly lists supported diagram types (flowcharts, sequence, ER). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_styles tool by having an entirely different purpose (conversion vs. listing).

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 explains when to use explicit styling via the %%{excali}%% directive and what style types are available. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives beyond the implied sibling. It gives clear context on optional outputPath usage for practical reasons (avoiding large token-heavy responses), which is useful guidance.

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