cw_convert_help

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It helpfully discloses the limitation that conversions cannot handle tempo changes, which is real behavioral context, but it never states that the tool is a pure read-only reference with no side effects or what form the returned text takes.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, listing the covered topics. The ordering is slightly list-like rather than front-loading the single most important point (the 1-based/0-based trap), but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter help tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it. A sentence clarifying that it returns static reference text and pairs with cw_convert would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema is trivially complete; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly introduces no parameter-like guidance that would be misleading.

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 enumerates the exact topics the tool covers — time units, the 1-based/0-based bar:beat:tick trap, grid note values in ticks, and conversion limitations. The verb is only implied by the name (it returns reference documentation rather than performing a conversion), but the scope is specific enough to distinguish it from cw_convert.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the reference companion to cw_convert, but the description never says 'read this before calling cw_convert' or when this is preferable to cw_convert itself. No exclusions or sequencing guidance are stated.

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