coordinate_transform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a pure read/compute operation (no mutation), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose error behavior, coordinate system conventions (e.g. Y-axis direction, scale/rotation handling), or performance characteristics. Some behavioral context is implied but not stated.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the mode routing. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 5 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It could go further by explaining what the return format is (a point pair) or how the optional 'screen' parameter scopes element search, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including the direction enum. The prose adds a small clarification of the direction values, but otherwise repeats what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Transform coordinates between local and global space relative to a named element') and immediately distinguishes the two modes with the direction enum values. No sibling tool covers coordinate transformation, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use each direction: 'to_local to convert scene coords to element-local, to_global to convert element-local to scene coords.' This is clear context, though it doesn't address edge cases like what happens if the element isn't found or whether the 'screen' parameter changes behavior.

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