list_compatible_units

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool returns all canonical unit names of the same physical dimension, including imperial and US customary units. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but for a simple listing tool, this is sufficient.

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 consists of two short, focused sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides all necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, existence of output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input, and output semantics. No additional information is needed for effective use.

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?

The single parameter 'unit' has no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description adds meaning by stating it lists units compatible with the given unit, indicating the parameter is the unit to check. This adds value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool lists all units compatible with a given unit, specifying it returns canonical unit names sharing the same physical dimension, including imperial and US customary. This is a specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'convert' or 'check_compatibility'.

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 when to use this tool (to list all compatible units), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to siblings. Given the context, an agent can infer usage, but explicit guidance would improve the score.

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