robot_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions conversion between formats, supported file types, and gzip compression via .gz suffix. It does not detail side effects, permissions, or file overwrite behavior, but the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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 two sentences long with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds essential details on formats and compression, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given 13 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits explanations for most parameters (e.g., check, working_directory, prefixes). The presence of an output schema is not leveraged, and no return value details are provided.

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%, yet the description only explains the 'format' parameter via supported formats and the .gz convention for compression. Many parameters (input, output, check, working_directory, catalog, prefixes, etc.) are left unexplained, forcing the agent to rely on inference.

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 an ontology between formats, with a specific verb and resource. It lists supported formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other operations (e.g., filter, reason).

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 for format conversion by naming supported formats and compression. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though the sibling tools cover other distinct tasks.

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