bytes_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions conversion to human-readable format with listed units, but omits important details such as whether binary (1024-based) or decimal (1000-based) units are used, how negative numbers or zero are handled, and the impact of the precision parameter on rounding. These gaps reduce 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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by parameter definitions. However, the parameter explanations could be integrated into the main description for better flow, and the bullet list formatting is acceptable but not optimal.

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 (two parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality adequately. It lacks edge-case details but is sufficient for a straightforward conversion tool. The presence of an output schema means return values are already documented elsewhere.

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 description compensates for zero schema coverage by clearly explaining both parameters: 'bytes' (Number of bytes) and 'precision' (Decimal places, default: 2). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only information, making the parameters self-explanatory.

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's purpose: converting bytes to human-readable format, specifying exact units (B, KB, MB, GB, TB, PB). This is a specific verb ('Convert') with a well-defined resource ('bytes'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling conversion tools by focusing solely on byte formatting.

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. For example, there are sibling tools like 'convert_units' or 'data_rate_convert' that might handle similar conversions. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use this tool.

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