conversion_base_converter

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'step-by-step working', indicating the output includes intermediate steps, but does not clarify if the operation is read-only or if it has side effects. The lack of annotations makes this score average since the description adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 with two sentences and a reference to describe_tool. The 'Menu ID' prefix is somewhat unnecessary but not harmful. The core information is front-loaded. Slightly longer than necessary but still 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 complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (step-by-step), edge cases (e.g., invalid input), or prerequisites. Reliance on describe_tool for 'full page guidance' indicates incompleteness.

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 description does not explain the parameters (input, from_base, to_base) beyond the tool's purpose. It fails to specify the expected format of the input string (e.g., digits with letters for bases >10) or that bases must be between 2 and 36. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates inadequately.

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: converting numbers between any base from 2 to 36 with step-by-step working. It explicitly lists supported conversions (binary, octal, decimal, hexadecimal, arbitrary radix), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like conversion_binary_decimal and conversion_decimal_hex that are likely more specialized.

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 implicit usage boundaries by stating 'Any Base 2-36', but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like conversion_binary_decimal. It also refers to describe_tool for full guidance, which is an indirect hint but not a clear directive.

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