3d2holo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context by stating values are derived from formulas rather than estimated, which tells the agent results are deterministic and reproducible. It does not discuss bounds handling or output shape, but the annotations carry most of that burden.

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 output enumeration comes first, then the usage trigger, then scope — a sensible front-loading for a numerical tool. The middle sentence is somewhat dense with examples, but every clause maps to a distinct capability or entry point, so little 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back — and it does, listing all five computed values. Combined with the usage triggers and scope boundaries, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter's meaning is already documented. The description still adds selection guidance the schema lacks: width/height are the base inputs and DPI, LPI, or view count are supplied "when known," signaling that lpi, viewCount, and resolution are optional. The 720 DPI default is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("calculate technical print parameters for a specific lenticular print") followed by an enumerated list of the exact values returned: pixel size, uncompressed file size, views per lens period, feasibility, rotation angle. This is far beyond restating the title and lets an agent recognize the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given as example user questions ("how many pixels are needed, what resolution to use, how many views fit, what rotation angle"), plus the inputs to supply. The scope sentence excludes calibration charts and price quotes, which routes the agent to generate_pitch_test_chart and get_print_quote respectively.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add operational context—which it does by describing chart contents (LPI sweep with alignment marks), the requirement to print at 100% scale, physical evaluation with the lens sheet, and the output ('image plus measurement instructions'). This goes well beyond what the safety annotations convey.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage triggers, chart/output description, and scope exclusion. Information is front-loaded so an agent can decide quickly, and there is no redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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 an image-generating tool with no output schema, the description carries the needed burden by stating that it outputs an image plus measurement instructions and requires 100% scale printing. Combined with fully documented parameters and clear scope boundaries, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter's meaning, defaults, and ranges are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that lpi is the nominal center of the sweep and implies sweep granularity via steps, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Generate a printable LPI pitch-test chart') and immediately distinguishes its purpose from siblings by explaining it measures/calibrates physical lens pitch. The scope sentence explicitly excludes print dimensions, view counts, and prices, which further separates it from calculate_output_params and get_print_quote.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering conditions: user has a nominal LPI and wants to verify the real value, calibrate a new sheet, or determine correct pitch before interlacing. The scope exclusion ('physical lens calibration only') provides clear when-not guidance against adjacent calculation and quoting tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the quote includes craft fees, lenticular grating/material fees, and a shipping estimate, and it is computed from current pricing rather than recalled from memory.

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 front-loaded with purpose and follows with usage conditions and scope exclusions. It is generally efficient, with only minor repetition between 'when the user asks how much a print will cost' and 'when the user provides or asks about print dimensions and quantity.'

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 moderate-complexity pricing tool with four parameters and full schema coverage, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. It explains the fee components included in the quote and the scope, though without an output schema it could be slightly clearer about the exact return structure.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already well documented. The description only reinforces that print dimensions and quantity are relevant inputs, without adding syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate the price of a custom physical 3D2HOLO lenticular photo print.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by scoping it to physical print pricing and explicitly excluding workflow, print-parameter, and calibration questions, so an agent can tell when this tool is appropriate.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use conditions: 'when the user asks how much a print will cost' and 'when the user provides or asks about print dimensions and quantity.' The scope statement also provides when-not guidance by excluding workflow, print-parameter, and calibration topics, though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's value-add is the content manifest and the explicit non-capabilities — genuinely useful for a zero-arg tool. It stops short of stating anything about data freshness, pricing currency, or volatility, which matters for a pricing-adjacent tool.

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 functional sentences: what it returns, when to call it, what it does not do. Content manifest is front-loaded, the routing exclusions trail. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the information returned. A note on whether pricing is static or current, and in what form it arrives, would close the last 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 input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, no-argument invocation.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Get authoritative 3D2HOLO product information") with an enumerated content payload: workflows, input types, output formats, LPI range, resolution, pricing. The scope sentence explicitly separates it from the four siblings' capabilities, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

States the exact triggering condition ("when the user asks what 3D2HOLO supports or how much the service costs") and adds a behavioral directive against hallucinating capabilities ("instead of relying on remembered or assumed capabilities"). The exclusion list implicitly routes compute/calibration/quote questions to calculate_output_params, generate_pitch_test_chart, and get_print_quote.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: what the tool returns ('recommended workflow steps and where to start') and firm scope boundaries. It does not discuss behavior for an unexpected or ambiguous input type, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and triggering condition, followed by a compact scope statement. The input-type list is long but each item maps to a distinct enum value, so 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 single-parameter, read-only selector with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: input meaning, output shape in prose, and explicit scope exclusions. No gaps remain that would cause a bad invocation.

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% and the enum values are self-descriptive, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by mapping each enum value to a user-facing situation (e.g. 'a GLB/GLTF 3D model' vs 'a Sketchfab model'), disambiguating choices the raw enum names alone might blur.

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 ('Recommend the right 3D2HOLO workflow') and enumerates the exact input types it accepts, which cleanly separates it from siblings like calculate_output_params and get_product_info. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition (user wants to convert existing visual content into a lenticular 3D photo and the source type is known) and lists exclusions ('does not provide product overviews, print-parameter math, calibration charts, or price estimates'), which implicitly routes the agent to the sibling tools for those needs.

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