map_plate_coordinate

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions the transformation and standards but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., invalid well IDs) or side effects. For a computational mapping, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Every part adds value: verb, resource, examples, standards. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the main purpose, standards, and units. However, it lacks details on supported plate formats and error behavior, which would make it more complete.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description implicitly defines 'well_id' via examples but does not explain 'plate_format' or its role. With no schema help, the description fails to fully clarify parameter meanings.

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 clearly states the verb 'translates' and the resource 'well IDs to Cartesian offsets', with specific examples ('A1' to 'H12') and standards (SLAS/SBS). It distinguishes from unrelated sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for coordinate conversion but lacks exclusions or alternatives. Siblings are unrelated, so no confusion, but still falls short of a 4.

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