Convert an engineering callout string

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses detailed behavioral traits: angles left unchanged, how bare numbers are interpreted based on category, the fallback with assume_lengths, and specific conversion examples. There is 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 concise yet packed with information: examples, behavior rules, and parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses multiple sentences that each add value without redundancy.

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 key aspects: unit conversion, notation preservation, category effects, and assume_lengths use. However, it lacks detail on return format (e.g., does it return converted text or structured output?) and error handling for unrecognized patterns, leaving minor gaps given the tool's complexity and no output schema.

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 description enriches the schema by explaining the 'text' parameter (as callout string), the effect of 'category' on number interpretation, and the use case for 'assume_lengths'. It compensates for the missing schema description on 'text' by context. The examples clarify parameter semantics.

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 converts printed drawing callouts between metric and imperial while preserving notation. It provides concrete examples and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., convert_value, lookup_thread) by focusing on callout text with complex patterns.

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 gives good guidance on when to use this tool (converting callout strings) and explains parameter nuances (category for surface roughness, assume_lengths for tolerance rows). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternative sibling tools.

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