parse_quantity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return structure but does not mention error handling, edge cases, or any side effects. For a pure parsing function, the behavioral profile is partially covered, but there is room for more transparency.

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 three sentences with the purpose stated first, followed by examples and return details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or 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, output schema available), the description covers the core functionality and return values. It adds context about dimensionality and SI equivalent not in the schema. However, it lacks notes on error handling or input validation, but the output schema likely fills return structure 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%, requiring the description to compensate. It provides examples ('100 mg/L', '9.81 m/s²') which add practical meaning, but does not formally define the expected format, constraints, or allowed syntax for the expression parameter.

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 parses a quantity string into structured components, with examples and a list of returned fields (magnitude, units, dimensionality, SI equivalent). 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 usage when you need to parse a quantity string but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., convert, list_compatible_units). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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