convert_temperature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says the tool converts temperature units and supports two modes. It omits critical behavior such as the requirement for file parameters (file_name, file_type, file_content are required in the schema), how return values are structured, and whether direct input can actually be used independently. The phrase 'direct input' conflicts with the schema's required file fields, creating confusion.

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 compact at two sentences and front-loads the primary action. However, the second sentence merely repeats the enum values already present in the schema, making it slightly redundant, though not verbose.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and a potentially complex file-or-direct-input workflow, yet the description is only two sentences. It lacks information about return values, required file format, error conditions, and how the system injects file_content, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by introducing the concept of file-based vs direct input, but it does not elaborate on the relationship between file_content and value/from_unit/to_unit. The 'Supports C and F' phrase is redundant with the schema enums.

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 identifies the resource (temperature units) and supported scales (C/F), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'calculate' tool, and the 'file content or direct input' phrasing introduces ambiguity about the exact conversion workflow.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. 'File content or direct input' is the only usage context, but it fails to clarify which input path should be chosen or how the tool handles file-based vs direct values.

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