convert_units

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 says 'Convert' but does not disclose whether this is a pure read-only conversion, whether it mutates the document, or why doc_id is required. For a conversion tool, side effects and context dependence should be clarified.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant sentences. The unit names add substance, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter and behavioral context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required from the description. However, the mandatory doc_id parameter has no explained purpose, and the lack of parameter descriptions leaves the tool incomplete for confident invocation.

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 does add meaning to from_unit and to_unit by listing possible unit values, but it leaves value and especially doc_id unexplained, and it does not specify the exact accepted string formats or conversion behavior.

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 states a clear verb ('Convert') and resource ('units') and explicitly names the supported unit families (mm, pt, hwpunit), so an agent can understand the core purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but no sibling appears to offer the same conversion capability.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and the unit list, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There are no alternative conversion tools among the siblings, so the lack of explicit routing is less damaging, but still not addressed.

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