rec

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 adds useful context about angle_mode defaulting to degrees, but it does not describe output format, error handling, or edge cases. For a simple pure conversion, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 highly concise and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded in the first phrase, followed by parameter details and a clarifying example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague content.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers the core essentials: operation, parameters, default unit, and example. It does not mention the inverse operation (pol) or potential edge cases, but these are minor gaps for a pure math conversion 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 coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining that r is the radius, theta is the angle, and angle_mode specifies the angular unit (default deg). The example further clarifies usage, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 polar (r,θ) to rectangular (x,y). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'pol' (likely the reverse operation), so it misses the full mark for differentiation.

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:' to indicate the specific use case (converting polar coordinates), providing clear context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as recommending the 'pol' tool for the reverse conversion, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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