gradians_to_degrees

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 conversion action but does not describe any behavioral traits such as error handling, input validation, output format, or computational limits. This is a significant gap 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with zero wasted words. The first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and the additional domain/category information is efficiently appended. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter semantics, output format, and usage context. For a conversion tool, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to invoke it correctly.

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, but the description adds minimal value by naming the parameter ('gradians'). It does not explain the parameter's meaning, units, constraints, or conversion formula. With one undocumented parameter, the description partially compensates but remains inadequate for full clarity.

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 gradians to degrees.' It specifies the verb ('convert'), resource ('gradians'), and target ('degrees'), and includes domain/category context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'degrees_to_gradians' or other angle conversion tools, preventing a perfect score.

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 ('trigonometry') and category ('angle_conversion'), but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or compare with sibling tools like 'degrees_to_gradians' or 'convert_angle', leaving usage context implied at best.

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