angle_convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states basic conversion and lists parameters, but does not disclose input validation, error handling, or behavior for invalid units. For a simple tool, this is minimal but still lacks important operational details.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.

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 low complexity of a simple conversion tool with 3 required parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the primary action and parameter roles. It is mostly complete, though it could be enhanced by listing allowed unit values or mentioning edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides brief explanations (e.g., 'Angle value', 'Source unit', 'Target unit'), which add some meaning beyond the schema's property names. However, it does not specify acceptable values for from_unit and to_unit (e.g., the actual strings allowed), which is critical for a unit conversion tool.

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 verb 'Convert' and the resource 'angle units', and lists the specific units supported (degrees, radians, gradians, arcminutes, arcseconds). This distinguishes it from sibling converter tools like area_convert or temperature_all.

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 for angle unit conversion but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus a general converter like convert_units, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear but lacks comparative direction.

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