radians_to_gradians

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 detailing output format, precision, error handling (e.g., invalid inputs), or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic operation.

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: 'Convert radians to gradians.' The additional domain/category tag is brief and does not detract. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant or verbose language, 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 low complexity (single parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context. For a simple conversion tool, this might be sufficient, but it does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving some operational questions unanswered.

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 1 parameter ('radians') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond implying the input is in radians. It does not explain units, valid ranges, or examples. However, with only one parameter and a straightforward conversion, the baseline is adequate but minimal.

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 radians to gradians.' It specifies both the verb ('Convert') and the resource/transformation ('radians to gradians'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'degrees_to_gradians' or 'radians_to_degrees', which perform similar angle conversions but with different units.

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. While it includes a domain/category tag ('Domain: trigonometry, Category: angle_conversion'), this is generic and does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'degrees_to_gradians' or 'convert_angle'. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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