number_base_convert

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid input format), output format, or limitations on number size. The description only states the basic operation, leaving important behavioral traits unspecified.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly improved by adding structure (e.g., listing default bases or an example) without becoming verbose.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return type (string? number?), behavior for invalid inputs, or that from_base defaults to 10 and to_base to 16. For a simple conversion tool, more context about expected output and error handling is needed.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, but it reinforces the allowed bases and common examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already explains parameters sufficiently.

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 a number between bases, listing common bases and specifying the range 2-36. It distinguishes from siblings like base64_encode and hex_encode which are for encoding strings, not converting number representations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as base64_decode, hex_decode, or other conversion tools. The description does not mention scenarios where base conversion is appropriate or when sibling tools should be used instead.

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