convert_angle

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Returns: {input}', which is vague and does not disclose the return format, error handling, or any side effects. The description fails to provide sufficient behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and succinctly lists inputs and return. No unnecessary information is included.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the return value structure (e.g., object or number) and contains a mismatch between listed units and schema enums, leaving the agent with incomplete contextual information.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description lists the parameter names but does not add additional semantic meaning, such as examples or restrictions beyond what the schema already provides.

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 converts angle units and lists units including arcminutes and arcseconds, but the input schema only includes degree, radian, gradian, and turn, causing inconsistency and potential confusion.

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 suggests usage contexts (math, navigation, surveying) and references list_bundles for related calculators, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool calculate_angle_convert, which appears to serve a similar purpose.

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