List the bundled material pack version, digest, coverage, shapes, rebar sizes, roof pitches, and explicit unsupported policy.
| 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?
The description indicates a read operation by stating 'List', but no further behavioral details are given (e.g., read-only, permissions, side effects). Since annotations are absent, the description partially carries the burden but lacks depth.
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 concise sentence listing the attributes. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about whether it returns a single pack or all packs, and does not clarify its relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent with incomplete 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?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, meeting the baseline for 0 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 specific attributes (version, digest, coverage, etc.) of a material pack. The verb 'List' and the resource 'material pack' are explicit, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_material_pack', which likely retrieves detailed data for a single pack.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_material_pack' or 'list_assemblies'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
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.