convert_units

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it handles edge cases (e.g., invalid units), precision of conversions, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and scope. Every word earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (unit conversion across categories) and 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, error handling, and output format, which are important for a conversion tool with multiple parameter types.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing example unit categories, but doesn't provide additional semantics like unit compatibility rules or conversion formulas. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Convert between different units' with specific categories listed (length, weight, temperature). It distinguishes from siblings like 'calculate' or 'solve_equation' by focusing on unit conversion rather than general computation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'percentage' could involve unit-like conversions).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when unit conversion is needed versus using 'calculate' for mathematical operations, 'percentage' for percentage calculations, or other siblings. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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