conversion_ieee754_float

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the supported precisions and the breakdown of sign, exponent, mantissa. It clearly indicates a read-only conversion operation without destructive side effects.

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 plus a Menu ID. It front-loads the core purpose. However, the 'Use describe_tool' sentence could be merged or trimmed without losing value.

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 4 undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details and return format, relying on external describe_tool for completeness, which is insufficient for standalone use.

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 has 4 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions precision types (32-bit, 64-bit) but does not explain the purpose of input, mode, inputFormat, or their accepted values. This leaves the agent guessing parameter usage.

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 converts decimals to IEEE 754 binary floating-point and back, specifying support for 32-bit single and 64-bit double precision with breakdown of sign, exponent, and mantissa. This distinguishes it from sibling conversion tools like conversion_binary_decimal or conversion_number_base.

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 mentions using describe_tool for full page guidance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is minimal and relies on an external reference.

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