convert_speed

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 but does not describe any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., invalid units), precision, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap, as the agent lacks critical operational context.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose followed by domain/category in parentheses. There is no wasted text, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information, making it highly efficient.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and output format. While concise, it does not provide enough context for the agent to reliably invoke the tool without ambiguity, especially with 0% schema description coverage.

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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds some value by listing example units ('mph, kph, m/s, knots, etc.'), which helps clarify the 'from_unit' and 'to_unit' parameters. However, it does not fully document all parameters (e.g., 'value' is not explained), so it partially compensates but not completely, aligning with the baseline for moderate schema coverage gaps.

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 speed between different units: mph, kph, m/s, knots, etc.' It specifies the verb ('convert'), resource ('speed'), and provides examples of units. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling conversion tools like convert_angle, convert_area, etc., which reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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 mentions the domain ('conversions') and category ('general'), but does not specify when to choose speed conversion over other conversion tools or any prerequisites. This lack of explicit usage context results in a low score.

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