base_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 32-bit fixed size, two's complement encoding for negatives, and the prohibition of leading '-' signs. This goes beyond a simple 'converts bases' statement. However, it does not mention output format or error handling, though an output schema exists.

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 and well-structured with 'When:', 'Params:', and a clear example. Every piece of information is useful and not redundant. It packs essential details into a small space.

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 and the existence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers input semantics, supported bases, and negative-number handling. It lacks a mention of return value or potential errors, but for this straightforward conversion tool with an output schema, the coverage is strong. Minor gaps prevent a 5.

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 compensate. It does so effectively: 'value' format is explained (no leading '-', FFFFFFFF-style for negatives), and from_base/to_base are constrained to {2,8,10,16}. The example further clarifies usage. This adds meaning entirely absent from the 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 explicitly states the tool converts an integer string between bases 2/8/10/16 with a fixed 32-bit two's complement representation. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that clearly differentiates it from siblings like base_arith (which likely performs arithmetic).

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 opens with 'When: convert an integer string between bases...', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'When' framing and constraints (bases allowed, two's complement for negatives) offer practical guidance. Missing explicit exclusion of other base conversion tools.

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