decimal_to_binary

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 only states the conversion action without addressing behavioral aspects like input constraints (e.g., negative numbers, large integers), output format (e.g., string representation, bit length), error handling, or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and includes helpful domain/category tags, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (single integer input, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., input validation, output format) and does not fully address the absence of annotations, making it minimally complete but with clear room for improvement.

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 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'decimal' of type integer. The description adds minimal semantics by clarifying it's a 'decimal number (base-10)', but does not elaborate on allowed ranges, formatting, or examples. This provides some value over the bare schema, but not enough to fully compensate for the low coverage, aligning with the baseline expectation.

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 specific action ('Convert'), the input resource ('a decimal number (base-10)'), and the output ('to binary (base-2)'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the exact conversion direction (decimal to binary), unlike the more general 'base_conversion' or the reverse 'binary_to_decimal' tools in the sibling list.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—when converting from decimal to binary—and the domain/category tags ('arithmetic', 'number_systems') help situate it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'binary_to_decimal' or 'base_conversion'), which prevents a perfect score.

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