convert_temperature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions input modes but omits critical details such as which parameters are required per mode, whether file_content is base64 and injected, return format, or any edge cases. The phrase 'or direct input' conflicts with the schema's required file parameters, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 with front-loaded purpose ('Convert temperature units') and supporting detail about supported units. Every word earns its place—no filler, redundant phrasing, or verbose structure.

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?

Despite the schema being rich (6 parameters with 100% description coverage), the description creates a significant gap: it claims 'direct input' is possible while the schema marks file_name, file_type, and file_content as required. This misalignment would mislead an agent about how to invoke the tool correctly. No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values or file-handling behavior, leaving the tool incomplete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond mentioning Celsius/Fahrenheit and 'file content or direct input', but it does not clarify parameter relationships or usage in direct-input mode, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Convert temperature units' and explicitly names the supported units (Celsius/Fahrenheit). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'calculate' or 'get_commitments', though the phrase 'based on file content or direct input' introduces slight ambiguity about the exact input mode.

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 implies usage for temperature conversion with 'Convert temperature units' and 'Supports Celsius (C) and Fahrenheit (F)'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate', nor does it clarify whether direct input or file content is preferred, and it provides no exclusion criteria.

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