power_converter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core operation (conversion between power units) and required inputs, which is adequate for a simple stateless converter. It does not mention behavior for invalid units, case sensitivity, or rounding, but these are less critical for this tool type.

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 two sentences with no filler: the operation, unit groups, and input parameter names are all front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple three-parameter converter, the description names all parameters and unit categories, enabling a basic invocation. However, with no output schema, no enums, ambiguous unit tokens, and no exact accepted-value format, there are gaps that could lead an agent to call the tool incorrectly.

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% and there are no enums, so the description must clarify the parameters. It names value, from, and to, and lists accepted unit groups, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the unit tokens are ambiguous ('mw', 'tr') and no exact string format or case rules are provided, leaving the compensation incomplete.

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 a specific verb ('Convert') and clearly identifies the resource ('power') with concrete unit groups (mw/w/kw, hp, btu/h, tr), which distinguishes it from sibling converters like length_converter or temperature_converter. It loses a point because some unit tokens ('mw', 'tr') are ambiguous.

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 the intended use case by naming 'power' and listing power unit categories, making it obvious which sibling tool to select. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives for other quantity types.

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