roman_convert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little beyond that: it does not state how direction is inferred, what happens for invalid inputs, or what the return format looks like, which are useful behavioral details for a conversion tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the two domains efficiently.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient. Still, it omits useful context such as whether direction is auto-detected, valid Roman numeral format expectations, or error behavior for out-of-range inputs, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'value' parameter as 'Integer 1-3999 or Roman numeral string.' The description does not add any syntax, detection rules, or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific action ('Convert') and both resource directions ('Roman numerals and decimal numbers'), so the tool's basic purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many other conversion siblings such as number_base_convert or temperature_convert, leaving the agent to infer the exact domain.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name and the parameter description that this is for Roman numeral/decimal conversions only.

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