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 disclosing behavior. It states it can work with file content or direct input, but the schema requires file_name, file_type, and file_content for all calls, creating ambiguity about how direct input is used. It does not describe how the tool parses file content, what happens if both file and direct value are provided, or any edge cases or error behavior.

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, directly front-loaded with the verb 'Convert' and the resource. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail, making it efficiently structured.

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 having 6 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain how direct input works given the mandatory file fields, what the return value looks like, or how to choose between file and direct input. For a tool with this complexity, the description lacks critical usage details.

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 cover all 6 parameters (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about unit abbreviations (C/F) and the file/direct input modes, but does not clarify the relationship between the optional value/from_unit/to_unit and the required file fields, leaving some semantics unexplained beyond the schema.

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 tool converts temperature units between Celsius and Fahrenheit, using the specific verb 'convert' and resource 'temperature units'. It also mentions file content or direct input as input modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'calculate', though the temperature focus makes the purpose fairly distinct.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'calculate'. It only implies that temperature conversion is its domain. Additionally, it mentions two input modes (file content and direct input) but does not clarify when to use one over the other, nor does it explain any prerequisites or exclusions.

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