int_convert

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether conversions are read-only, error handling, or format constraints. Only the schema's property descriptions hint at supported formats, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema (which presumably explains return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks explanation of what 'different formats' means and does not clarify that the tool likely returns converted numbers. For a conversion tool with two required parameters, slightly more contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameters adequately.

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 'Convert numbers to different formats' clearly states the tool's action and resource. While it's brief, it distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_function or disasm, which are unrelated. However, it could specify the supported formats (hex, decimal, binary, ascii) as hinted in the schema.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when conversion is appropriate, or comparisons with siblings like get_int or put_int. The agent must infer usage from context.

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