convert_ecl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the core conversion behavior, but it omits side effects such as whether the input file is modified, how a null output_path is handled, or whether existing output files are overwritten. This is partial transparency, not complete.

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 a single concise sentence with the action 'Convert' front-loaded. There is no redundant wording, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful parameter and behavior details.

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?

With three parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. It explains the general conversion purpose but leaves mode semantics and output-path behavior undocumented. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but it does not fill the parameter and side-effect gaps.

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%, and the description adds no information about 'mode', 'input_path', or 'output_path'. An agent cannot determine what values 'mode' accepts, what 'auto' means, or the behavior of a null output path, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 uses a specific verb ('Convert') and names both the resource ('ECL result files') and the conversion direction ('between formatted (F*) and unformatted'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_ecl and makes the tool's function immediately understandable.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when an ECL result file needs to be converted between formatted and unformatted forms. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, but no sibling tool appears to offer equivalent conversion functionality, so exclusions are less critical.

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