Road User Tools

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 produces fuel quantity plus cost figures in both km and mile bases, which is useful, but it never states that this is a pure, side-effect-free computation and gives no permission or rate-limit context. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the inputs, and the outputs with zero filler. Nothing is redundant and the core purpose appears first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers inputs and the general shape of the result. For a pure calculator with no annotations this is nearly sufficient, though a note that it performs no currency conversion (already only in the schema) would round it out.

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 the schema already documents distance, economy, price, and the display-only currency label in detail. The description restates three of the four inputs but adds no unit syntax or constraint meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies 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 verb ('Calculate') and resources ('fuel required and journey cost') and names the exact inputs (distance, fuel economy, fuel price). This clearly separates it from the convert_* siblings, which transform units rather than compute costs. It stops short of naming a sibling directly, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is implied by the input list: an agent can infer this is the tool for turning distance + economy + price into a cost. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as convert_fuel_economy or calculate_journey_time, so routing is left to inference.

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

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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the arithmetic. It does not say whether mixed unit systems (e.g., miles with km/h) are handled, what happens at zero speed beyond the schema's constraint, or whether the operation is side-effect-free and deterministic.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, stating the computation and its inputs immediately. It is appropriately compact for a simple two-parameter calculator, though it borders on under-specification rather than true concision.

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?

With a rich input schema and an existing output schema, most structural detail is covered, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits unit-mixing semantics and the unit the resulting duration is expressed in, which matter for correctly calling a units-aware calculator.

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 coverage is 100% and both nested unit/value objects are fully documented with constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description merely restates the two parameters as 'distance' and 'average speed' without adding format, range, or compatibility meaning beyond what the schema already says.

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 and result (calculate journey duration) plus the exact inputs (distance, average speed), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling convert_* tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any named sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus convert_distance, convert_speed, or calculate_fuel_cost, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage purely from the formula.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It is a stateless pure calculation with no side effects, and its brevity implicitly conveys that, but it says nothing about rounding/precision, output formatting, or behavior for the optional target unit being omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words; the verb, the value being acted on, and the unit scope all land immediately.

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?

With a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description does not need to explain return values. It is adequate for this simple tool, though it could note the all-units fallback and any precision behavior to be fully self-contained.

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 the enum values and the 'optional target unit; all units returned when omitted' semantics are already documented in the schema. The description merely repeats the unit list and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('a distance value') plus the exact unit set, which unambiguously separates it from siblings like convert_power, convert_speed, or convert_torque. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose itself — you call it when a distance needs converting — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the notable 'omit `to` to receive all units' mode, which is the one routing decision this tool actually has.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly communicates that this is a pure, deterministic conversion with no side effects, but says nothing about rounding/precision of results or error behavior on non-positive or non-finite input (the schema hints at this constraint but the description does not). Low-stakes behavior, so a 3 rather than lower.

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 sentence, zero filler, with the conversion scope front-loaded. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

With a full output schema and 100% schema coverage, the return shape and parameters are covered elsewhere, so the description only needs to establish purpose and unit scope, which it does. The remaining gap is the absence of any precision/rounding note for the converted values.

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 the schema already documents every parameter, including that 'to' is optional and defaults to returning all units. The description's unit list duplicates the enum values and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('fuel economy value') and enumerates the four supported units, which cleanly separates it from the sibling converters (convert_distance, convert_power, convert_speed, etc.). An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the unit list, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how it differs from calculate_fuel_cost, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate for a straightforward converter but not instructive.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it adds nothing beyond the conversion itself. It omits that omitting the target unit returns all units and says nothing about error behavior for invalid input, though the operation is a deterministic pure computation so the risk is low.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the title and nothing extraneous is included.

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 simple three-parameter conversion tool with a fully described schema and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. It could be stronger by noting the all-units default when the target is omitted.

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%, with enums and per-parameter descriptions covering the unit distinctions and the non-negative/finite constraint, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the unit set and adds no syntax, rounding, or precision 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?

States a specific verb and resource (convert an engine power value) and enumerates the exact units handled (kW, hp, PS), which naturally distinguishes it from convert_torque, convert_distance, and the other unit converters. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops 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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus its siblings or what preconditions apply; usage is only inferable from the unit list. No alternatives, no exclusions, no context cues are given.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly frames the tool as a value transformation, which implies a side-effect-free computation, but it says nothing about the optional-target behaviour, rounding/precision, or invalid-input handling. Adequate for a trivial pure function, thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, preamble, or redundancy. Every word (verb, resource, unit set) earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameters need no restatement. The description is nevertheless minimal for a tool with zero annotations, and the optional 'to' semantics are left entirely to the schema rather than being surfaced where an agent reads first.

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%, including the enum values and the 'Must be finite and non-negative' constraint, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only repeats the unit list already present in the enums and adds no syntax, default, or edge-case meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (convert), a precise resource (tyre pressure value), and the exact unit set (PSI, bar, kPa). This uniquely separates it from the sibling converters for distance, speed, power, torque, and fuel economy without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no reference to the sibling converters. Usage is implied by the tightly bounded domain (only pressure units), which is enough for an agent to route correctly, but nothing is stated that helps it choose this over a neighbouring conversion tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but a deterministic unit conversion has a minimal behavioral footprint. It conveys the supported units and the directional semantics but says nothing about precision/rounding, determinism, or that omitting the target unit returns all units.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place by naming the verb, resource, and unit domain.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, return values and parameters need not be repeated. The description is complete enough for a simple conversion utility, with only mild gaps around precision and the optional-target default.

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 coverage is 100%, so the enum for 'from'/'to', the optional-target behavior, and the value type are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the unit names and adds no meaning beyond the structured fields, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb (Convert) and resource (speed value) and enumerates the exact unit set handled, so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like convert_distance or convert_power, though the resource noun makes the separation self-evident.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It is implied that this is the tool for speed conversions, but nothing addresses sibling selection or the case where a different dimension (distance, fuel economy) is needed.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral burden. It says nothing about validation rules (e.g., non-negative finite values), error behavior, or whether the optional target unit affects return format. An output schema exists, which relieves return-value details, but mutation-free read behavior and constraints are not obvious from the description.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant or wasted text. Ideal length for a simple conversion 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?

Given complexity is low (3 params, 100% schema coverage, no annotations, output schema present), the description is minimally sufficient but leaves behavioral gaps. It could mention the optional 'to' behavior or unit constraints, which are critical for correct invocation.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the units, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Convert) and resource (torque value) with named units, distinguishing it from sibling converters like convert_distance or convert_power. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against siblings, keeping it at 4.

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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling converters. Only an implied context that it's for torque conversions, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one useful behavioral detail beyond the name — that only 'public' and 'currently available' calculators appear (i.e., filtering) — but says nothing about auth needs, result freshness, or whether pagination applies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler words; every token contributes to identifying the resource and its scope.

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?

With an output schema capturing the return shape, zero params, and a read-only listing action, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. Only the lack of explicit usage framing keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage and no enums, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Road User Tools calculators) with a scope qualifier ('currently available'). The verb alone separates it from the calculate_*/convert_* siblings, though it never names that contrast 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery tool to call before invoking a specific calculator, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, prerequisite, or named alternative.

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