data_sizes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool outputs both binary and decimal forms and highlights the discrepancy between them. However, it does not specify the input format (that n represents bytes), rounding behavior, or potential errors, leaving some ambiguity.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that immediately state the core function and a relevant nuance. No filler or redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main output behavior. However, the missing input semantics and lack of annotations prevent full completeness, though the tool is not complex enough to require extensive documentation.

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 schema defines a single integer parameter 'n' with no description, and the tool description does not explain what n represents. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical gap—the user must infer that n is likely a byte count.

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 identifies the tool's function: providing byte sizes in both binary and decimal units. While it lacks an explicit verb, the phrasing 'Byte sizes both ways' plus the unit lists unambiguously conveys the operation, distinguishing it from general unit conversion 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?

The description implies use when both binary and decimal byte representations are needed, and the second sentence explains the practical significance of the 5% gap. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like convert_units, nor does it provide exclusions.

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