ecef_to_geodetic

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

The description discloses the conversion action, input parameters with units, return format (JSON with lat/lon/alt), and error handling (returns formatted strings). However, it lacks important behavioral details like the reference ellipsoid (e.g., WGS84) and precision, which are relevant for coordinate transformations.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises). Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff.

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 (3 parameters, no nested objects), the description covers inputs, outputs, and error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structure, though missing reference ellipsoid is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter (x_m: X coordinate in meters, etc.), adding units and meaning beyond the schema names. This is highly valuable for correct usage.

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 explicitly states the tool converts ECEF coordinates to geodetic (lat/lon/alt) coordinates. It clearly identifies the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'ECEF to geodetic', and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like geodetic_to_ecef.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., transform_frames). Usage is implied by the name and description, but no context or exclusions are given.

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