3DPACK.ING — Load Planning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does well: it explains the solver-based nature, the class of outputs (containers needed, fullness, non-fit items, 3D load plan link), and the trade-off that higher stability means fewer items fit. It does not mention potential failure modes, rate limits, or side effects, but for a computation/planning tool the behavioral picture is clear.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and return value, the second paragraph gives usage guidance, and the third focuses on the subtle stability parameter. Each sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 and no annotations, the description provides a remarkably complete picture: how to describe cargo, what outputs to expect, when to prefer this tool over volume estimation, and how to handle the special stability constraint. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the results without guessing.

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 adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema, especially for `stability`: it explains why the prompt cannot express this constraint, how the solver uses it, and the trade-off between packing density and support. This goes beyond the schema's plain description and helps an agent craft better 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Work out how a shipment fits into shipping containers, trucks or pallets, using a real 3D bin-packing solver.' It clearly states the tool's function and the outputs it produces, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does and what it returns. There are no siblings to distinguish from, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 'Use this instead of estimating from volume' and explains why volume arithmetic is inadequate, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It also provides specific guidance about when to set `stability`, covering an important non-obvious decision point. This fully equips an agent to choose the tool correctly and configure it appropriately.

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