eda_sys_unit_mm_to_mil

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is a pure conversion returning a number, which is adequate for a simple utility. It does not explain rounding behavior or the exact effect of numberOfDecimals, but the operation itself is transparent enough from the signature.

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 function signature, followed by the conversion intent and return value. There is slight redundancy between the signature's '-> number' and the explicit 'returns: 输出密尔数', but no wasted or irrelevant 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?

For a low-complexity conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential calling information: parameter names, types, order, optionality, and return unit. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit explanation of how numberOfDecimals affects the result.

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?

Although the context reports 100% schema coverage, the args array items are empty, so the actual parameter semantics rely on the description. The signature adds meaningful meaning by giving parameter names, types, order, and the optional marker for numberOfDecimals, which the schema alone does not provide.

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 a specific operation: converting millimeters to mils, reinforced by both the signature 'sys_Unit.mmToMil(mm: number, numberOfDecimals?: number) -> number' and the Chinese phrase '单位转换：毫米到密尔'. It is distinct from the broader sibling family because it names the exact conversion direction, though it does not explicitly reference sibling tools.

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: use this tool when converting a millimeter value to mils. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling unit-conversion tools such as eda_sys_unit_inch_to_mm or eda_sys_unit_mil_to_mm.

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