energy_convert

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Convert between energy units' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as error handling, precision, or supported unit validation. This is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about edge cases.

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 with two effective sentences: one for the purpose and one for the parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple unit converter, the description covers the essential functionality and parameter meanings. However, it lacks details about valid unit inputs, error behavior, or output format (despite an output schema, its content is unknown). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by listing parameters and their purposes ('value — Energy value', etc.). However, it does not specify valid unit strings or constraints, so the added value is moderate.

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 explicitly states 'Convert between energy units' and lists a specific set of units (J, cal, Wh, kWh, BTU, ft-lb, eV), making its purpose clear and distinguishing it from sibling conversion tools.

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 energy unit conversion but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It is straightforward for such a simple converter, but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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