weight_converter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Convert weight' and lists input parameters, without revealing any side effects, return format, error handling, or limitations. For a simple converter, this is insufficient; it doesn't even clarify whether conversion is bidirectional or what happens with invalid units.

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 very concise, with two short sentences that contain no fluff. It front-loads the unit scope. However, it is arguably too terse, omitting essential parameter details, but that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one. It earns points for being efficient.

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 tool's simplicity, one might expect a brief description, but the schema provides no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only lists units and parameter names, leaving out critical details like the exact accepted unit strings (e.g., 'mg' vs 'milligram'), whether all conversions are supported, and what the output format is. This is inadequate for an agent to call it correctly without guessing.

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 explain parameter meaning. It lists units in the conversion line but does not explicitly map them to the 'from' and 'to' parameters. It merely says 'Input: value, from, to.' without defining each parameter's expected type or allowed values, leaving the agent to infer that from/to accept unit strings. This is ambiguous and insufficient for a zero-coverage 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's function ('Convert weight') and lists specific units (mg/g/kg/tonne ↔ oz/lb/st), which distinguishes it from sibling converters for length, temperature, etc. This is a specific verb+resource with enough detail to identify its domain.

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 provides clear context that this is for weight conversion, implied by the unit list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unit scope makes it obvious when to use it versus other converters. No explicit 'when not to use' is given, so it lacks exclusions.

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