convert_relative_position

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses supported conversions, parameter details, and defaults. It is transparent about the transformation but does not mention error handling or unsupported input 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 well-structured with a summary line followed by parameter details. It is concise yet includes all necessary information, though slightly verbose with the 'Args' section.

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?

No output schema exists and the description does not describe the return value format (e.g., output is a 3-element array in target frame). This omission reduces completeness for a conversion tool.

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?

Since schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully explains all 6 parameters: station format (geodetic/geocentric/ecef), vector, from_frame, to_frame, station_type, angle_format. It provides allowed values and defaults, adding significant value 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 a position relative to a ground station between ECEF and topocentric frames, listing specific supported conversions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_position by specifying the station-relative context.

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 guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like convert_position or convert_state. It lists conversions but lacks context on selection criteria or exclusions.

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