convert_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that epoch is required for ECI<->ECEF and GCRF<->ITRF, and that angle_format applies to geodetic/geocentric angles. However, it does not cover error behavior or system limitations.

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 reasonably concise and front-loads the main purpose. The list of supported conversions is helpful but could be more compact. Overall, it is free of fluff and well-organized.

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 complexity (multiple coordinate frames) and lack of output schema, the description covers supported conversions, parameter details, and conditional requirements. Minor gaps exist (e.g., vector unit expectations), but completeness is strong.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It provides an 'Args' section with clear explanations for vector, from_frame, to_frame, angle_format, and epoch, including defaults and conditional requirements (e.g., epoch needed for certain conversions).

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 that the tool converts a 3-element position vector between coordinate frames, and explicitly lists supported conversions (e.g., GEODETIC<->ECEF, GCRF<->ITRF). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_anomaly or convert_epoch.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as convert_state or convert_relative_position. It mentions that epoch is required for certain conversions but lacks guidance on selection among coordinate conversion siblings.

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