gsa_output_unit_factor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does not say whether the factor is global or model/stage-dependent, whether it requires an initialized output block, or anything about side effects. For a trivial zero-argument getter this is a modest but real gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is appropriately sized for a trivial getter, though it is terse enough to leave useful context unstated.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value is documented elsewhere, so the description need not explain it. For a zero-argument conversion-factor getter, the statement is nearly sufficient, missing only scope/prerequisite 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level ambiguity exists.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the SI-to-model unit conversion factor. Clear about what it produces, but it does not distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling gsa_output_unit_string, which sounds like it may return related unit information.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus gsa_output_unit_string or the other gsa_output_* helpers. The agent is left to infer that this is the numeric-factor counterpart to the unit-string tool.

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