number_to_base

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 tool converts numbers to a specified base, but doesn't describe error handling (e.g., invalid bases), output format (e.g., string representation), or constraints (e.g., base range limits). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds domain and category context without unnecessary elaboration. There's no wasted text, and it's structured effectively for quick understanding, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (base conversion), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly. It should provide more operational details to compensate for the missing structured data.

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 parameters 'n' and 'base' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean (e.g., 'n' as the input number, 'base' as the target radix), their valid ranges, or examples. With two required parameters and zero coverage, the description fails to compensate, making it inadequate.

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 a number to specified base representation.' It includes a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('number'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'base_to_decimal' or 'decimal_to_base' by focusing on general base conversion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'base_conversion' or 'add_in_base', which might have overlapping functionality, so it's not 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. With many sibling tools like 'base_conversion', 'decimal_to_base', and 'binary_to_decimal', there's no indication of when this tool is preferred, what its limitations are, or any prerequisites. It only states the domain and category, which is insufficient for usage decisions.

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