design-engine

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool generates a design basis, without discussing side effects (e.g., no write operations), authentication needs, rate limits, or any additional behavioral traits. The agent cannot infer whether this is a read-only computation or involves mutations.

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 sentence of 20 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose and listing key inputs. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could include more detail without becoming overly long.

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 (9 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain what constitutes a 'design basis' or what the output contains. While an output schema exists, the description should provide a high-level overview of the result. The presence of sibling tools suggests a workflow, but the description gives no integration guidance.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description names only 5 of 9 parameters (itLoadMw, rackDensityKw, gpuGen, siteAreaSqm, region) and vaguely mentions 'optional project inputs'. It does not explain the meaning, units, or constraints for any parameter, nor does it describe the nested 'options' or 'parcels' objects. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema 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 'profile-aware AI data center design basis' from specific inputs (IT load, rack density, GPU generation, site area, region, optional project inputs). It uses a specific verb (generate) and resource (design basis), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 'layout' and 'validate'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. The only context is the list of inputs, which implies the tool is for initial design generation.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only what is generated, with no information about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only or destructive.

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 sentence with 16 words, no redundancy. However, it could be more informative without being verbose. It is concise but skimps on valuable context.

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 of the input schema (nested objects, many fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks explanation of key terms like 'profile-aware' and does not provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the full scope of the tool's functionality.

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 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It uses the term 'nested design request' which hints at the 'design' parameter but does not explain any parameter details, enum values, or constraints.

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's action ('generate') and the outputs ('profile-aware physical rack blocks, rack-plan candidates, and site layout data'), and specifies the input ('from a nested design request'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'design' and 'validate' by focusing on layout generation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having a design from 'design' tool) or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It includes a behavioral note about private sessions not being exposed through public MCP, but omits details like side effects, permission requirements, or return behavior beyond what the output schema covers.

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: one defining purpose, one adding behavioral context. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous words, earning its place efficiently.

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 with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers basic purpose and a privacy detail, but lacks information on when to use the tool, error handling, or input validation nuances. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description only paraphrases 'design summary' and 'raw design input' without adding meaning beyond field names. The schema itself defines required nested properties, but the description does not clarify parameter semantics or usage.

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 title 'Validate a data center design' and description clearly state the tool validates design summaries or raw inputs against electrical, cooling, layout, safety, and data rules. The purpose is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools 'design' and 'layout', though explicit differentiation is absent.

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 use after creating a design summary or raw input, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention alternatives like design or layout. Usage context is clear but not formally stated.

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