convert_common_to_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool modifies files (comments out COMMON, inserts imports) but does not mention safety precautions, reversibility, or potential side effects like file modification permissions.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant words, and essential information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without any filler.

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?

The description covers the main action but omits error conditions (e.g., missing COMMON block), output format details (though an output schema exists), and prerequisites. For a file-modifying tool, more completeness is expected.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'block' and 'module' but does not explain the purpose or constraints of file_path, block_name, or module_name. With no parameter documentation in either schema or description, the agent is left to guess the meaning.

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 uses specific verbs ('extracts', 'generates', 'comments out', 'inserts') and clearly identifies the resource (legacy COMMON block, modern Fortran module). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_legacy_identifiers and generate_c_bindings by focusing exclusively on COMMON block modernization.

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 implicitly suggests use for modernizing Fortran code with COMMON blocks, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention conditions like file existence or prerequisites.

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