convert_base

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the input is a string representation, the valid base range 2-36, and that the output is a string. It does not cover error behavior for invalid digits or out-of-range bases, which is a minor gap for a pure function.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then gives the input/output contract and a concrete example. No wasted text.

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 small pure conversion function with an output schema present, the description supplies everything needed: parameter kinds, valid ranges, and a worked example. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains all three parameters — number is a string interpreted in from_base, and the result is expressed in to_base, both bounded to 2-36. The worked example further anchors the argument kinds and order.

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 (convert) and resource (an integer from one base to another), and the input/output contract is unambiguous. No sibling tool does base conversion, so an agent can select this without ambiguity among the math utilities.

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?

It defines the valid domain (bases 2-36) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools or any preconditions/alternatives. Usage is implied by the clear purpose rather than stated.

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