eda_sys_unit_mil_to_mm

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

The description discloses the core behavior (converts mils to millimeters) and the return type (number), but gives no detail on how numberOfDecimals affects the result, rounding behavior, or handling of invalid inputs. With no annotations to provide safety or side-effect information, this minimal behavioral disclosure is adequate for a pure conversion but not comprehensive.

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 extremely terse: one signature line followed by two short Chinese phrases. It front-loads the essential function signature, avoids any redundant content, and every part earns its place.

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 low-complexity unit conversion, the signature and return type cover most needs. An agent can infer the argument order from the signature and the schema note about 'official signature order'. The description does not explicitly clarify how to pass parameters or what numberOfDecimals does, but these are minor gaps for such a simple tool.

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 input schema only describes a generic 'args' array and windowId, providing no semantics for the actual parameters. The description adds the typed signature (mil as number, numberOfDecimals as optional number), which is essential for constructing the args array correctly. It does not fully explain the meaning of numberOfDecimals, but the parameter name and optional marker give meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 provides the exact function signature 'sys_Unit.milToMm(mil: number, numberOfDecimals?: number) -> number' and states the conversion in Chinese ('单位转换：密尔到毫米', meaning mil to mm), which clearly identifies the tool's action and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling unit conversion tools by the explicit unit pair in both the name and description, though the Chinese phrasing may reduce clarity for non-Chinese-reading agents.

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 versus alternatives such as eda_sys_unit_inch_to_mm or eda_sys_unit_mm_to_mil. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and signature.

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