Format a byte count as a human-readable string with the right unit. Pure CPU, instant.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"bytes": "<bytes>"
},
"name": "bytes_format"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bytes | Yes | Byte count |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / bytesAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Byte count",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "bytes"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states 'Pure CPU, instant,' indicating no external I/O and low latency, but it omits edge-case behavior such as negative bytes or precision/unit conventions.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result. 'Pure CPU, instant' adds relevant performance context without padding.
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 pure formatting utility with no output schema, the description states the input, output, and performance profile. Exact rounding and unit conventions are omitted, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.
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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Byte count'), and the description adds only that it is formatted into a human-readable string. It does not add byte-domain constraints or unit-system details beyond the schema.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Format') and resource ('a byte count') and states that the output is a human-readable string with units. It does not distinguish itself from nearby utilities such as file_size, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternative is named. The purpose implies a formatter, but an agent gets no routing help beyond the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.