eda_sys_unit_mm_to_inch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool takes a number and returns a number, and the signature indicates a pure conversion function. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects on any document, nor does it describe rounding behavior, decimal handling, or error cases. For a simple math utility this is a minor gap, but it is not fully transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the conversion direction and signature. There is minor redundancy between the signature's '-> number' and the separate 'returns: 输出英寸数' line, but no wasted words overall. It is easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 unit conversion without an output schema or annotations, the description covers the core facts: conversion direction, parameters, and return type. However, it omits details about the windowId parameter (which appears in the schema), precision behavior, and the fact that this is a side-effect-free utility. These omissions are notable but not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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's args array has empty items ({}), so the actual parameters mm and numberOfDecimals are not described in the schema at all. The description compensates by providing the complete signature with parameter names, types, and optionality. It does not elaborate on the meaning of numberOfDecimals beyond its name, but it adds essential information that the schema omits.

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 explicitly states '单位转换：毫米到英寸' (unit conversion: millimeters to inches) and provides the exact function signature sys_Unit.mmToInch(mm: number, numberOfDecimals?: number) -> number. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eda_sys_unit_inch_to_mm or eda_sys_unit_mil_to_mm by specifying the exact conversion direction.

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 when to use the tool (when a millimeters-to-inches conversion is needed) through its stated purpose, but it offers no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. It does not compare itself to the many sibling unit-conversion tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and conversion direction rather than being directly told.

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