transform-coordinates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the supported CRS formats, which is helpful, but it omits other behavioral details such as whether the operation is read-only, what the return value looks like, or how errors are handled. For a transformation tool, the core behavior is evident, but more context would improve 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and supported formats. Every word earns its place, with 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?

The tool has moderate complexity, but the description does not explain the return format or coordinate structure, which is significant given the absence of an output schema. The schema provides some parameter details, but the overall description remains incomplete for a tool that transforms geospatial data.

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 coverage is 67%; the CRS parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, and the description repeats these formats without adding new meaning. The coordinates parameter lacks a schema description, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining the expected format or structure for coordinates.

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 transforms coordinates between different coordinate systems, which is a specific verb+resource. It also lists the supported CRS formats (EPSG, WKT, Proj), distinguishing it from the sibling 'list-supported-crs' tool.

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 coordinate conversion is needed, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions. It relies on the user to infer purpose from the function name.

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