3d2holo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this by framing the tool as a calculator rather than a mutator. It adds the useful rule of thumb 'rather than estimating values manually,' but never indicates what the response actually contains despite there being no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the when-to-use list, then input guidance, then the exclusion — a logical order. It is somewhat list-heavy and could trim the enumeration of question types, but every sentence contributes.

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 read-only calculator with five well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggering conditions, required inputs and exclusions. The main residual gap is the absence of any indication of the returned values or their units, which the agent must infer from the enumerated questions.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents units (inches, DPI, LPI), ranges and defaults. The description only restates optionality ('include printer DPI, lens LPI, or desired view count when known') without adding syntax or interaction semantics beyond what the schema says.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Calculate technical print parameters for a specific lenticular print') and immediately enumerates the concrete question types it answers (pixel counts, resolution, output file size, views per lens period, feasibility, rotation angle). This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_print_quote or generate_pitch_test_chart.

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 when-to-use is given via a list of user question types, plus practical guidance on which inputs to supply. It also states when NOT to use it ('Do not use it for LPI calibration or pricing'), routing the agent to the calibration and pricing sibling 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the chart contains an LPI sweep with alignment marks and must be printed at 100% scale then physically evaluated with the lens sheet. It doesn't describe output file format or return shape, but for a deterministic read-only generator this is strong.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage conditions, then the routing exclusion. No sentence is redundant and the most decision-relevant information (what it produces and the alternative) comes first.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing what the chart contains and how it is meant to be consumed. Required inputs, defaults and the alternative tool are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs 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 100%, so every parameter including lpi, steps, resolution, widthIn and heightIn is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 artifact ('Generate a printable LPI pitch-test chart') plus the exact situation it serves ('measure or calibrate the actual lens pitch'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling calculate_output_params, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Gives concrete positive triggers ('has a nominal LPI but wants to verify the real LPI, calibrate a new lens sheet... before interlacing') and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Do not use this tool merely to calculate print resolution... use calculate_output_params'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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 read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by enumerating what the returned quote comprises (craft fee, lenticular grating/material fee, shipping estimate) and by stating the intended use over manual estimation. It does not need to explain safety behavior.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then usage, then quote contents, then exclusions. Every sentence carries information, though the enumeration of fee components is slightly list-like and could be tightened.

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, the description appropriately tells the agent what the quote includes and when the tool applies, which is enough to invoke and interpret it. Remaining gaps (numeric precision, error behavior for invalid dimensions) are minor for a read-only estimator.

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 width, height, quantity, and the country/packaging-box nuance are already fully documented in the schema. The description only names 'print dimensions and quantity' at a high level and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, so it sits at the baseline.

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 (estimate) and resource (price of a custom 3D2HOLO lenticular photo print), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling calculation/info tools by scoping to physical print quoting. An agent can identify the tool's job 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 gives triggering conditions (user asks how much a print will cost, provides dimensions and quantity) and explicit exclusions (digital workflow questions, technical print-parameter calculations, LPI calibration). It also directs the agent to use this instead of estimating from general product information, which rules out the get_product_info sibling.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety semantics are covered. The description adds genuine value beyond those flags by framing the tool as the authoritative, non-memory-based source of truth ('use this tool instead of relying on remembered or assumed capabilities'), which tells the agent to trust this over its own priors. It stops short of describing return shape or freshness guarantees.

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 primary purpose before the exclusion list. Every clause maps to either a covered domain or a sibling redirection, though the enumeration and exclusion list together make it longer than strictly minimal.

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-argument, read-only lookup tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and routing completely. The only mild gap is that it does not hint at the shape or granularity of the returned catalog/pricing data, though with no output schema that omission is minor.

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 per the baseline this scores 4. There are no arguments for the description to explain, and the description correctly spends its words on routing and scope rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 (get authoritative 3D2HOLO product info) and enumerates the content domains it covers: supported input types, output formats, LPI ranges, workflows, and pricing. It explicitly names what it is not for, which separates it from get_workflow_guide, calculate_output_params, and get_print_quote. The umbrella phrase 'product information' is slightly broad, but the enumeration grounds it.

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 when to use it ('when the user asks what 3D2HOLO supports... or current product/pricing information') and when not to use it ('calculating a specific print size, generating an LPI test chart, selecting a workflow for a specific input, or estimating a custom print quote'), pointing to specialized alternatives for each excluded case. An agent can route correctly from this text alone.

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 a safe, idempotent, closed-world read (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuine behavioral value by explaining it is advisory in nature and returns the recommended workflow plus required next steps. It stops short of describing output format or depth, so not 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then triggers, then exclusions – every sentence carries routing information. The closing exclusion list is slightly dense, but it is functional rather than filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns (a recommended workflow and next steps), and what it does not cover. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is an enum, so the schema already does the work (baseline 3). The description goes further by expanding each enum value into natural-language examples (single photo, multi-angle photos, GLB/GLTF model, Sketchfab model, AI multi-view images), clarifying what each input type means.

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 (choose the appropriate 3D2HOLO workflow) scoped to turning existing visual content into a lenticular 3D photo. It explicitly excludes adjacent concerns (product info, print params, LPI calibration, price quotes), which maps onto the sibling tools, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any 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?

Gives explicit triggers (user has a specific source type and is unsure how to proceed), enumerates the qualifying source types matching the enum, states sequencing ('use it before giving workflow instructions'), and lists concrete exclusions. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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