weight_conversion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion function without mentioning what units are supported, whether it handles edge cases (like negative values), what precision it provides, or what the output format looks like. For a conversion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's zero wasted text or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple conversion tool and gets straight to the point.

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 conversion tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what weight units are supported, provide parameter guidance, describe the return format, or address any behavioral aspects. The agent lacks critical information needed to use this tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so all three parameters (value, from_unit, to_unit) are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, what units are acceptable, or provide any examples. The agent must guess parameter semantics from the tool name alone.

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 '在不同重量单位之间进行转换' clearly states the tool's purpose: converting between weight units. It uses a specific verb ('转换' - convert) and resource ('重量单位' - weight units), making the function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling conversion tools like length_conversion or temperature_conversion beyond the weight domain.

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. There's no mention of when weight conversion is appropriate versus other conversion tools, nor any prerequisites or constraints. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and description without explicit context.

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