convert_frame

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions it never uses hand-rolled trigonometry and returns the position with the frame explicitly labeled, but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (none expected), permissions, or rate limits. For a safe transformation tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, the second adds a credibility note. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks clarification on the input parameters (ra_deg, dec_deg) and their format, which is a gap since schema descriptions are absent.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not individually describe parameters like ra_deg, dec_deg, or explain their units. It only briefly mentions frames. The enum values are clear from schema, but the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool clearly transforms coordinates between reference frames, naming specific frames (ICRS, FK5, FK4, Galactic). The verb 'transform' and resource 'coordinates between frames' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like convert_units or distance_from_parallax.

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 states it uses astropy's tested transforms, implying reliability, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool, nor any alternatives. Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose but not clearly stated.

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