convert.unit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It states determinism, case-insensitivity with aliases, rejection of cross-dimension, and use of ground-truth factors. It also mentions that it returns the exact result and dimension. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior for unrecognized 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?

The description is highly concise, consisting of two sentences plus a list of examples. Every sentence provides essential information, and no words are wasted. The structure front-loads the purpose and then provides details.

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 simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains all input aspects, the return format (exact result + dimension), and behavioral constraints (rejection of cross-dimension). No critical information 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 input schema has 100% description coverage with brief field descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining alias handling, case-insensitivity, and providing unit examples, which enrich the schema definitions. The examples guide correct parameter usage.

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 it performs 'deterministic unit-of-measure conversion' and lists specific categories and unit examples. It distinguishes from non-conversion tools by mentioning rejection of cross-dimension requests. The verb+resource 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?

The description provides clear usage context by listing supported dimensions and units, and explicitly states that cross-dimension conversions are rejected. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, though there are no direct sibling tools for comparison.

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