pack_calculatorExploration tool for item dimensions and weight. Calculates required inside dimensions, ranks Packrift box/mailer candidates, and gives void-fill guidance before live price/inventory confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| use_case | No | auto | |
| padding_in | No | ||
| item_depth_in | Yes | ||
| item_width_in | Yes | ||
| item_length_in | Yes | ||
| item_weight_lb | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which inform the agent about safety and open-world behavior. The description adds context that the tool is exploratory and provides 'guidance' rather than final confirmed pricing, which is useful. However, it does not disclose details about return format, pagination, or any limitations beyond what annotations imply. This adds some value but not rich behavioral context, consistent with a mid-level score.
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 and well-structured, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence ('Exploration tool for item dimensions and weight') followed by specific details. It contains no redundant or filler language, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.
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?
The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations. The description explains the tool's purpose and workflow context but does not describe return values or how parameters affect results. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more detail about what the agent can expect. It is adequate but leaves significant gaps 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'item dimensions and weight,' covering four of seven parameters, but does not explain limit, use_case, or padding_in. These are left entirely to the schema names and enum values. The description provides minimal additional meaning over the schema, insufficient for the number of parameters and zero 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's purpose with specific actions: 'Calculates required inside dimensions, ranks Packrift box/mailer candidates, and gives void-fill guidance.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as an exploration tool used 'before live price/inventory confirmation,' differentiating it from pricing and inventory tools.
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 on when to use the tool: as an exploration step before live price/inventory confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'before live price/inventory confirmation' implies a specific workflow phase. This is clear context without explicit alternatives, matching the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_inventory and inventory_status both focus on live stock, find_packaging_for_item and pack_calculator both handle dimension-based fitting, and create_cart_url, prepare_purchase_handoff, and get_cart_handoff_candidates all revolve around cart handoff. While descriptions add some clarity, an agent could easily select the wrong tool without careful reading.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_inventory, get_pricing, search_products), but inventory_status and pack_calculator are noun-based and break the convention. The naming is still predictable and readable overall.
15 tools is at the upper edge of the ideal range, and the count feels slightly inflated due to overlapping inventory and cart-handoff tools. However, each tool has a defined purpose in the procurement workflow, so the count is not excessive.
The tool surface covers the full buyer journey: search, fit calculation, comparison, product detail, inventory check, pricing, cart creation, purchase handoff, shipping estimates, quotes, and reorder links. No critical dead ends were found.