Engineering unit conversion

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions refusal of cross-dimension conversions but omits details on error handling, precision, or output format. The absence of an output schema makes the missing return value description a notable gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action and constraint, then a concise example of refused behavior. Efficient and well-structured.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and a key behavioral constraint, but given the lack of output schema, it should state that the tool returns the converted numeric value. Without this, the description feels slightly incomplete for an agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about dimensional constraints but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's examples and types.

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 action (convert) and the resource (a value between engineering units), and specifies that conversions must be within the same physical dimension, listing examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_units or material_properties.

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 explicitly warns against cross-dimension conversions, providing a clear when-not-to-use condition. However, it does not mention alternatives like list_units for checking available units, which could enhance guidance.

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