int_convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses output formats (decimal/hex/ascii/binary) and input flexibility, but omits side-effect profile, determinism, error behavior, or instance/auth requirements beyond what the schema already states. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 three short sentences: purpose first, then input/output formats, then usage mandate. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted text.

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 simple conversion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input/output formats, and usage. It omits some behavioral details, but the schema's 100% coverage handles instance routing and parameter documentation, making it complete enough overall.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions input and output formats, but these are already documented in the schema's inputs description, and it adds no extra syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('数值进制转换') and specifies accepted input formats and output formats, so the tool's purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate int_convert from sibling tools like get_int or put_int, so it falls short of full sibling routing guidance.

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?

It states when to use the tool ('禁止 LLM 手算进制，必须调用此工具') and frames it as the required path for base conversion. It does not name alternative tools or describe when not to use it, but the directive is clear.

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