data_sizes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the binary/decimal distinction, which is helpful, but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a formatted string, object) or any edge-case behavior, such as handling of negative numbers or large values.

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 very brief, using two sentences for the core purpose and an additional line to emphasize the common confusion. It is front-loaded, but the second sentence about the 'gap' is slightly verbose for the limited information it adds, though generally efficient.

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's apparent simplicity (single integer parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly adequate but misses key details: the meaning of 'n' and the exact output format. It clarifies the binary vs. decimal distinction but doesn't specify units or return structure, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 only one parameter 'n', with no description and 0% coverage. The description does not explain what 'n' represents (e.g., the number of bytes, maybe an integer value). It leaves the meaning entirely implicit, failing to add value beyond the schema.

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 computes byte sizes in both binary and decimal units, with a concise summary of the key difference. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'convert_units' or other related tools, which is a minor gap in clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'convert_units' or 'list_units'. It implies usage by focusing on the 1024/1000 gap, but lacks concrete 'use this when' instructions or exclusions.

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