cw_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: side-effect-free arithmetic, no project/SONAR dependency, and a mutually exclusive input rule. The 'bases' warning about 1-based bars vs 0-based ticks prevents a real class of mis-calls. It does not state the return shape, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

Three compact sentences: the operation, then the environment constraint, then the exclusivity rule, then the gotcha about bases. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant fact (no project needed) 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 6-param, all-optional, non-mutating utility with no annotations and no output schema, this covers the calling contract well: inputs, exclusivity, defaults implied by bpm/timeSig schema notes, and base conventions. The one material gap is the absence of any statement about what the tool returns (all representations? a single value?), which the missing output schema leaves entirely undisclosed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by stating the exactly-one-of constraint that the schema's all-optional properties do not express, and by clarifying that bare numbers are BARS. The base-convention note largely duplicates the schema's own 'Bar and beat are 1-based; the tick field is 0-based' wording, which limits the added value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Convert between ticks, bar:beat:tick and seconds', naming all three domains of the transformation. It is immediately distinguishable from every sibling, including cw_convert_help, because no other tool claims arithmetic conversion.

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?

Gives real usage context: 'Pure arithmetic — it needs no project and works with SONAR closed', which tells an agent to reach for this instead of any state-dependent tool. It also states the exclusivity rule 'Pass exactly one of: ticks | time | seconds | bar'. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g. cw_convert_help) for edge cases.

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