convert_zpl_dpi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical non-obvious behavior that embedded ^GF/~DG bitmap data is NOT rescaled and that a Warnings block is emitted instead of silent passing. It does not fully specify the output structure, but it covers the most important behavioral edge case.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical caveat about bitmap data follows immediately with a clear behavioral consequence.

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?

For a stateless conversion tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the conversion purpose and the important warning behavior. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the returned value is the converted ZPL string, but that is strongly implied by 'output' and the conversion context.

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 documentation coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. The dpi values listed in the description overlap with the schema's allowed values, though it omits 152 dpi, which is minor.

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 names a specific verb ('Rescale') and resource ('ZPL coordinates between printer resolutions'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling validation and preview tools. The mention of 203/300/600 dpi, plus the bitmap-data caveat, makes the tool's scope precise.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when ZPL coordinates need conversion between printer resolutions. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly among siblings.

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