tool_base_converter

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 merely lists inputs and outputs without explaining how fromBase is interpreted (e.g., numeric string '2' vs. named base 'binary'), what happens on invalid input, or whether all four outputs are always returned. No error handling or edge-case behavior is disclosed.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the tool's purpose and then listing parameters and outputs in a clean format. It is not verbose, and every section serves a purpose. However, the parameter descriptions are somewhat redundant with the schema, which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide sufficient context. It lists the outputs but fails to explain how to specify the input base, what base 'value' is assumed to be if fromBase is omitted, or any constraints. This is essential for a conversion tool and the description is incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Input Base') without adding any additional semantic meaning about allowed values, formats, or relationships between parameters. It does not compensate for the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a Base Converter and lists the output formats (binary, octal, decimal, hex). This indicates it converts between number bases, distinguishing it from sibling converter tools like tool_temperature_converter or tool_currency. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'converts', which would make the purpose even clearer.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, what input formats are accepted for 'value' and 'fromBase', or any mention of alternatives. The description provides no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the parameter names.

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