format_validate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool validates and converts answer format, but does not reveal what happens on invalid input, whether conversion is automatic, or what the return value is. This lack of detail is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core action, though it is terse enough that some necessary behavioral context is omitted. This is a good balance of brevity and clarity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and success/failure conditions, which it does not. It also fails to clarify how options interact with validation or what 'convert' precisely entails. The tool appears simple, but the description is incomplete for reliable agent usage.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, including the enumerated expected_format values. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses specific verbs 'validate' and 'convert' with the resource 'answer format', clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boolean_evaluate and date_calculate by focusing on generic format validation/conversion rather than domain-specific evaluation. The word 'convert' adds a slight ambiguity but the overall purpose is clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as systematic_verify or boolean_evaluate. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name and context. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative comparisons are mentioned.

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