cbm

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return details (total CBM, CFT, weight, fill percentage, overload flag) that go beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention any constraints on side effects.

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 concise, three sentences front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids redundancy and uses efficient wording. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated use cases), but overall effective.

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 complexity (multi-unit calculation with container fitting), the description explains all return values (CBM, CFT, total weight, fill percentage, overload flag). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, it is complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates that items have length, width, height, weight, quantity in metric or imperial units, but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 calculates total shipment volume (CBM, CFT), total weight, and container fit. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'CBM & Container Fit' are specific, and since there are no sibling tools, no differentiation is needed.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool, including queries about shipment space, cubic metres/CFT, container fit, and container size. It provides clear context without needing exclusions or alternatives.

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 establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them. It discloses the no-argument default (returns the full catalog), the returned slug per vessel, and the filter interaction rule ('Ignored when vessel is given'). Only the result shape/paging conventions are left to the 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the coverage list comes first, the usage trigger second, the invocation/default behavior last. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and the most load-bearing content is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is not required. The description covers both calling modes (list vs. single-vessel lookup), the filter interaction, and accepted identifier formats, so an agent can call it correctly on the first try.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not fully carry: calling with no arguments lists the entire catalog, and the optional mode filter is explicitly subordinate to vessel. It also illustrates accepted vessel identifier forms ('20ft-container', '20 foot container', '40HC'), reinforcing the schema rather than merely restating it.

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 names the exact resource (interior dimensions, volume, floor area, payload) and scopes it precisely to 47 shipping containers, truck trailers, rail wagons and air ULDs, enumerating concrete examples (20ft, 40HC, reefer, LD-3, PMC). The catalog-listing verb ('lists the whole catalog') makes it unmistakably a reference lookup rather than a calculation, which separates it from the calculate_cbm / how_many_pallets_fit / plan_cargo_load siblings.

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 an explicit trigger list ('Use this when someone asks for the internal or interior dimensions, cubic capacity, floor area, payload or weight limit'), which is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when not to use it versus the calculator siblings, so it falls short of the top score.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: best-orientation floor count (not naive length division), the double-stack height condition, and that payload weight decides whether weight or floor binds first. It does not add auth/rate-limit detail, but none is needed for a pure calculator.

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 question and trigger, then the output shape. The single long paragraph is slightly dense and repeats the pallet/vessel enumerations the schema already carries, but every sentence earns its place in clarifying output behavior.

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 an output schema, the description fully covers what is computed and why the result differs from naive division, and it routes the agent to the catalog tool for valid vessel values. 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates pallet dimensions and vessel examples already present in the schema, and adds that gross weight 'only affects the payload-limited count', which is a marginal gain over the schema wording.

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 question the tool answers ('how many pallets fit in a given container/trailer/wagon/ULD') and names the exact resource domain. The concrete examples (20ft holds 11 Euro, 40ft holds 25) make clear this is a solved pallet-loading calculation, distinguishable from calculate_cbm and get_container_dimensions.

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 says 'Use this whenever someone asks how many pallets... fit', giving a clear trigger. It also points to get_container_dimensions for the vessel catalog, but does not explicitly contrast with calculate_cbm or plan_cargo_load, so the sibling routing is only partially 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 declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the per-call scope constraint ('One size per call; for several sizes, call once per size') and the fact that a web-rendered plan link is returned. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only calculator that is a minor gap.

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 purpose, then usage triggers, then the return payload, then the one-size-per-call constraint — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is somewhat dense and long, but every clause carries information (vessel list, output fields, scope rule), so it earns its length without padding.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return values, yet it still summarizes them (units per layer, layers, loads needed, utilisation, web link), which is more than required. Annotations cover the safety profile, schema coverage is 100%, and the description supplies purpose, triggers, scope rules and vessel coverage — nothing an agent needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters and the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by clarifying that each call covers a single size with optionally-supplied weight, which explains why quantity is interpreted per-size and why weight is optional ('without it the payload is not checked' is in the schema). Modest added value on top of a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Plan how one cargo size loads into a shipping container, truck trailer or rail wagon') and enumerates supported vessel types, so the agent knows exactly what the tool computes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling how_many_pallets_fit (which also handles pallets) or calculate_cbm, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 trigger conditions: 'Use this when someone asks how many of their boxes, cartons, crates or pallets ... fit in a 20ft, 40ft ... or whether weight or space limits the load.' This clearly states when to reach for the tool. No alternatives are named in the description (get_container_dimensions is only referenced inside the schema), so the 'when-not / alternative' half is missing.

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