IEEE 754 Float Converter

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral details: the return structure includes sign, exponent, fraction, hex, bin, decimal string (with NaN/Infinity), and classification. It also warns about non-exact representation with an example (0.1 double). No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs plus a third for the return structure and examples. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers parameters, then output. No redundant sentences; every sentence adds necessary information.

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 presence of an output schema (context 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to fully explain return values but still lists the key fields. It covers parameter constraints (exactly one input) and provides examples, making the tool fully usable without external documentation.

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 descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity constraint ('Provide exactly one of decimal/hex/bin') and giving format examples (e.g., '0x3F800000'). This aids correct invocation beyond the schema alone.

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 'Encode/decode IEEE 754 single (32-bit) or double (64-bit) precision: decimal <-> hex <-> binary' with a specific verb ('encode/decode') and resource ('IEEE 754 single/double precision'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'embedcalc_number_base_convert' by focusing on IEEE 754 representation.

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 explicitly says 'Provide exactly one of: decimal (number), hex (string like '0x3F800000'), bin (bit string)' and advises 'Do not eyeball float bit patterns — call this tool', indicating appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternative embedcalc tools.

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