Artvinci's frame calculator

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds that this is an estimate rather than an order or commitment, which is useful, but it does not disclose further behavioral details such as rounding, currency, or excluded costs.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It states the action, object, and key inputs efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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, read-only pricing tool, the description combined with a 100%-covered input schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and existing output schema is largely sufficient. The only minor omission is explicit handling of edge cases like currency or price boundaries, which are not essential to invoke the tool 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 already has a meaningful description, including frameProfileId's source from framing.list-frame-profiles. The description rephrases the inputs without adding new constraints, units, or format details, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('total price to frame an artwork'), with clear inputs (dimensions, chosen frame profile). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling list-frame-profiles tool, which lists profiles rather than pricing.

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 implies the use case—estimating cost given dimensions and a profile—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention the workflow with framing.list-frame-profiles. Usage is clear by inference, not by direct guidance.

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 communicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It does add that the results include per-linear-meter rates and that these are profiles ArtVinci can actually frame with. However, it does not mention anything like currency, ordering, or pagination, though the output schema may cover return shape.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the object, the domain, and the key output field. Every part contributes meaning and there is no repetition or 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 no-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it identifies what the result is and what data it contains. The only minor gap is not explicitly routing the agent away from the sibling price-estimation tool, but the sibling name makes that distinction obvious.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('frame profiles (mouldings)') and adds scope ('ArtVinci can frame an artwork with') plus a distinctive detail ('each profile's per-linear-meter rate'). This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling tool framing_estimate-frame-price, which estimates prices.

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 makes it clear the tool is for retrieving the catalog of available frame profiles and their rates, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention framing_estimate-frame-price as an alternative, but the contrast with the sibling name is strong enough for most calls.

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