convert_units

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly implies a pure conversion operation, but does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., no data is modified) or return format. For a straightforward conversion tool, the description is adequate but lacks added context beyond the examples.

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: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides illustrative examples. It is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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?

For a simple conversion tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete. It names the unit categories and examples, which is exactly what an agent needs. The output schema handles return values, so the description need not repeat that.

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%, and each parameter already has an example in the schema. The description's examples overlap with the schema's parameter examples, adding minimal new semantic meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 numeric values between common units of length, weight, temperature, or volume. The verb 'convert' is specific, and the resource is well-defined. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_password or date_calculator by focusing on unit conversion.

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 concrete examples (km<->mi, kg<->lb, celsius<->fahrenheit, liter<->gallon) that imply when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for a simple conversion tool.

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