convert_units

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that dimensional mismatches are errors rather than guessed conversions, which clarifies failure semantics.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and supported by relevant examples. Every part adds value, with no redundant or filler 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 low complexity, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential operation and error behavior. It does not discuss the precision parameter's effect, but this is a minor omission given the compactness and clarity of the overall description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'value' with examples like '32 degF' and implies 'to_unit' is the target unit, but it does not explicitly describe the 'precision' parameter. The examples help map 'value' and 'to_unit', but precision remains undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Convert') and identifies the resource ('a dimensionful value') with concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate or physical_constant by focusing on unit conversion and explicitly stating that dimensional mismatches are errors.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: when converting a value from one unit to a compatible target unit. It does not name alternative tools explicitly but provides unambiguous usage context through examples and the error condition.

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