3DPACK.ING — Container & Truck Load Planning

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that it uses a real solver, describes the return values (containers, fullness, unfitted items, link to interactive plan), and explains the input format. It doesn't mention edge-case behavior like impossible loads or limits, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 concise paragraphs, each earning its place. The first explains capabilities and outputs; the second gives usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the agent should expect as output. It also covers input requirements, examples, and a rationale for choosing this tool. Given the complexity of the domain, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete prompt examples and clarifying how to phrase cargo constraints (fragile, non-tiltable, stack height), going beyond the schema's brief description. The speed parameter is well explained in the schema, so no additional description is needed there.

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 clear, specific purpose: using a 3D bin-packing solver to determine how a shipment fits into containers, trucks, or pallets. It also lists concrete outputs (containers needed, fullness, unfitted items, 3D load plan), making the tool's function unmistakable.

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 says to use this tool instead of estimating from volume, explaining why volume arithmetic is inadequate. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, even without sibling tools to contrast with.

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