transform_coordinates

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

The description only states the basic function. No details on acceptable CRS formats, coordinate formats, error behavior, or return value format. Without annotations, this is insufficient for an AI to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 very short, which can be seen as concise, but it lacks detail needed for proper usage. It could benefit from a second sentence clarifying parameter formats.

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 does not provide sufficient information about coordinate input format or CRS specification. While output schema exists, the lack of parameter details makes the tool difficult to use correctly.

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 provides no parameter details. The agent cannot determine coordinate order or CRS format from the description alone.

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 action (transform) and objects (coordinates between CRS). It is sufficiently specific to distinguish from related tools like project_geometry which handles full geometries.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not mention alternatives or context for choosing this over project_geometry.

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