unit_conversion

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the conversion operation. It does not mention side effects (likely none), permissions, or error handling, but for a simple conversion tool, this is acceptable. No contradictions with annotations as none exist.

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 very concise at one sentence plus an example, lacking any structural elements like headings or bullet points. However, it efficiently conveys the core purpose, earning a high score for brevity.

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 complete schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain the return format (e.g., numeric value with unit string) or acknowledge potential limitations (e.g., unit compatibility), leaving some gap for the agent.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (value and target_unit). The description adds an example but no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description clearly states 'Convert between units' and provides concrete examples ('5 inches to cm' and '100 fahrenheit to celsius'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like derivative or solve which handle different mathematical operations.

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 gives examples of how to use the tool but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance on unsupported conversions or edge cases, leaving the agent to 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.