convert_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses supported conversions, conditional requirement for epoch, and angle format. It does not discuss errors or side effects, but for a conversion tool this is adequate. Overall transparent for its purpose.

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 purpose first, then supported conversions, then parameter details. It is slightly verbose but avoids unnecessary repetition. Every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly.

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 params, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers all parameters and conversion rules. However, it does not explicitly state the output format (presumably also a 6-element state vector). 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: vector format, allowed frames, angle_format default, epoch requirement. Adds meaning beyond schema names, including explicit list of frames and conversion dependencies.

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 a 6-element state vector between coordinate frames,' which is a specific verb and resource. It lists supported conversions and distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_anomaly and convert_position, which handle different data types.

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 implies use for state vector conversions but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention excluded cases or provide when-not-to-use advice. The name and context provide some implicit differentiation.

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