time_conversion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the conversion function without any details on behavior such as precision, error handling (e.g., invalid units), return format, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, such as supported units, expected output, or error conditions. The simplicity of the tool might mitigate this slightly, but key details are missing.

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 0%, meaning none of the three parameters ('value', 'from_unit', 'to_unit') are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what units are supported, the format of unit strings, or examples of valid inputs. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 '在不同时间单位之间进行转换' (Convert between different time units) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('转换' - convert) and resource ('时间单位' - time units). It distinguishes from siblings like 'length_conversion' or 'temperature_conversion' by specifying the domain of time. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the mathematical nature of the conversion, which might be inferred from sibling tools but isn't stated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for use, or comparisons with other conversion tools (e.g., 'speed_conversion' might involve time units but isn't referenced). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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