Kubova — 3D Container Loading

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it uses real 3D packing (not just volume math) and reports the binding limit. No contradictions with annotations. Slight gap: does not describe whether it returns per-container or aggregate results.

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 two dense sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core question and key details. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description explains the core algorithm and standard container option, but lacks details on output format and does not cover optional rotation/stacking parameters. It is adequate for simple use but could be more complete regarding expected return values.

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 50% (only qtyPerSet has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining key concepts (carton types, qtyPerSet, all cartons in same container) and the containers parameter (omit for standard). However, it does not elaborate on fields like allowRotation or allowStacking, which are left to the schema defaults.

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 estimates how many complete sets of one product fit in a container, explains the concept of carton types and qtyPerSet, and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on capacity estimation rather than packing or verification. The verb 'estimate' is specific and tied to a clear resource (container capacity).

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 clear context for when to use the tool (estimate fits), and mentions omitting containers for standard evaluation, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like pack_containers or generate_report. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it returns base64-encoded PDF+PNG per container and that passing result avoids recomputation. This is helpful but does not disclose extensive behavioral details beyond annotations.

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, with two sentences plus an important note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity (nested objects, 7 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description could provide more context about expected output format and usage scenarios. It covers the key behavior but is not thorough enough for a complex tool.

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 only 43%, yet the description only adds meaning for the `result` parameter. Other parameters (cargos, pallet, container, etc.) are not elaborated upon, leaving the agent to rely on the schema alone, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 generates a CAD-style PDF + 3D PNG report for a packing job. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pack_containers and estimate_capacity.

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 recommends passing the `result` object from a prior pack_containers call for consistency. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare with other siblings.

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?

The description indicates a write operation (packing), but annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, contradicting the described behavior. This contradiction severely undermines transparency, as agents may expect a read-only 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and solver, then covering modes and settings. Every sentence provides value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior (bulk/pallet), return fields (placements, utilization, weight, weightBalance), and per-SKU options. It omits details on 'options' object and 'containers' array but those are in the schema. The contradiction slightly reduces completeness but informationally it is fairly comprehensive.

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?

With schema description coverage at 33%, the description compensates by explaining loading modes, per-SKU settings (orientations, stacking, order), and output details. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though some parameters like 'containers' and 'options' are not elaborated.

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 verb 'pack' and the resource 'cargo SKUs into shipping containers' using the Kubova solver. It distinguishes between bulk and pallet modes, and lists return values. This is specific and differentiates from siblings like estimate_capacity (estimation) and generate_report (reporting).

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 explains when to use bulk vs pallet loading and describes key per-SKU settings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like estimate_capacity for capacity estimation without detailed packing.

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=true. Description adds that it returns account identity and plan, which is useful behavioral context. No contradictions.

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 short sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key information.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose and return. Lacks details about return format, but no output schema exists to supplement.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100% for zero params). Description adds no param info, which is acceptable as there is nothing to add.

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?

Clearly states it verifies the connection and returns account identity and plan. Specific verb and resource, distinct from sibling tools like estimate_capacity or generate_report.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned, but the tool's simplicity (no parameters) implies use for connectivity or authentication checks. Minimal guidance beyond stating the action.

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