List supported assemblies, required dimensions, formulas, waste defaults, and the current material-pack digest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately conveys that this is a read operation listing multiple items. The behavior is straightforward: returns a list. No side effects or constraints are hidden, though some additional detail about the response could be added.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's function without unnecessary words. Every element contributes meaning.
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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It names the key data categories listed, and with the output schema providing structural details, no further explanation is needed.
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?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% trivially). According to the rules, 0 parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given the absence of parameters.
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 lists supported assemblies and associated data (dimensions, formulas, waste defaults, material-pack digest). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_assembly' (singular) and 'list_material_pack' (specific to material packs).
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. Usage context is implied but not detailed, lacking guidance on when to choose this over get_assembly or calculate_takeoff.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: calculation, server info, retrieval of assemblies and material packs, listing, and verification. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., calculate_takeoff, list_assemblies, get_material_pack).
7 tools is well-scoped for a quantity takeoff server, covering listing, retrieving, calculating, and verifying without being excessive or sparse.
The tool set covers core workflows: listing, retrieval, calculation, and verification. Minor gaps like managing previous takeoffs or creating assemblies are absent but acceptable for a read-only planning estimate server.