eda_sys_unit_inch_to_mm

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

The description reveals only that it converts inches to millimeters and returns a number. It does not disclose behavior regarding the numberOfDecimals parameter, default rounding, precision limits, or whether the windowId parameter affects execution. With no annotations to fill this gap, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 brief and front-loaded with the signature orienting the agent immediately. The Chinese text and 'returns' line are redundant but not harmful; it earns high marks for not wasting words, though the inclusion of the signature might be seen as slightly redundant with the tool name.

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, the description is nearly adequate, but it omits details about the optional numberOfDecimals parameter's effect (e.g., rounding, default precision) and does not mention the windowId parameter present in the schema. An agent might make incorrect assumptions about the optional parameter's behavior.

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 description includes the function signature with parameter names, types, and the return type, which the schema's args array does not specify. It clarifies that 'inch' is a number and 'numberOfDecimals' is optional, adding meaningful detail beyond the generic schema 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 states the tool converts inches to millimeters, with a specific function signature and output type. It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling unit conversion tools like eda_sys_unit_inch_to_mil or eda_sys_unit_mm_to_inch.

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 implies usage via the conversion context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other unit converters. There's no mention of scenarios or exclusions, but the simple nature of the task makes the intended use fairly obvious.

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