pol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the default angle_mode ('deg'), provides an example with expected output, and implies a pure conversion. However, it does not state return format explicitly, error behavior, or that it is non-destructive. The example gives some transparency, but not complete.

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 extremely concise: a 'When' clause, a param line, and an example. Every sentence serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the key trigger, making it easy for an agent to quickly determine applicability.

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 is simple, and an output schema exists (though not shown) which likely describes return values. The description covers the purpose, parameters, and a concrete example. It doesn't mention edge cases or alternative sibling tools, but for a straightforward conversion, it is adequately complete given the 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It introduces x and y as rectangular coordinates and angle_mode for θ, with a default of 'deg'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't enumerate allowed values for angle_mode (e.g., 'rad') or clarify that x and y are numbers (though schema states type). The example helps but is not exhaustive.

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 rectangular (x,y) to polar (r,θ)'. It uses a specific verb ('convert') and identifies the resource (rectangular to polar). It also distinguishes itself from manual calculation by saying 'Prefer over manual atan2', and the sibling 'rec' (likely reverse conversion) is implicitly contrasted by the phrase 'for this mode'.

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 begins with 'When: convert rectangular (x,y) to polar (r,θ)', explicitly stating the condition for use. It also provides a clear alternative to avoid ('manual atan2'), giving practical guidance. While it doesn't mention sibling tools like 'rec', the 'When' clause and preference note are sufficient.

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