base_conversion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the base range (2-36) but does not describe error handling (e.g., invalid bases or number formats), output format, performance characteristics, or side effects. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves in practice.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It avoids unnecessary words and efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, the inclusion of domain and category in parentheses, while potentially useful, slightly detracts from pure conciseness without adding operational value.

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 complexity (three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter formats, error conditions, output structure, and differentiation from sibling tools. For a base conversion operation that could involve validation and formatting nuances, this minimal description does not provide enough context for reliable use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters ('number', 'from_base', 'to_base') are documented in the schema. The description only implies that 'number' is a string and bases are integers 2-36, but it does not explain format expectations (e.g., alphanumeric characters for bases >10), validation rules, or examples. This leaves the semantics of all three parameters inadequately defined.

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: converting a number between bases 2-36. It specifies the verb ('convert'), resource ('number'), and scope ('any base to any other base (2-36)'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'base_to_decimal' or 'decimal_to_base', which are more specific base conversion tools in the same domain.

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 minimal guidance, only mentioning the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('number_systems'). It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'base_to_decimal' or 'decimal_to_base', nor does it outline prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. This lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent with insufficient information to choose appropriately among similar tools.

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