convert_angle

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 states the tool performs a conversion 'in one operation', implying a straightforward, read-only calculation without side effects. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid inputs), performance characteristics, or output format, which are important for a tool with three parameters and no output schema.

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: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by domain and category in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, 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 complexity (three parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or practical usage examples. While the schema provides parameter details, the lack of behavioral context and output information leaves gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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, but it does not mention any parameters. The input schema clearly defines 'angle', 'from_unit', and 'to_unit' with enums, so the agent can infer usage from the schema alone. The description adds no semantic context beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 due to the schema's clarity despite the coverage gap.

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 angle units in one operation.' It specifies the verb ('convert'), resource ('angle units'), and scope ('in one operation'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'degrees_to_radians' or 'radians_to_gradians', which perform similar conversions but are more specific.

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: it mentions the domain ('trigonometry') and category ('angle_conversion'), but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'degrees_to_radians' or 'radians_to_gradians'. There is no explicit advice on when-not-to-use or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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