container-loading

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the output but does not specify whether the tool modifies state or is read-only. It also omits any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This leaves ambiguity about the tool's impact.

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 relatively concise, with a few sentences that front-load the purpose. Each sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections for output and usage).

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 description explains the output in detail (stuffing sequence, figures, retailer checks) despite lacking an output schema. It covers key aspects of what the tool returns. The only missing detail is the exact format (e.g., JSON versus file download), but 'machine-readable' is sufficient for many contexts.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. It focuses on output rather than parameter usage, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 exports a machine-readable LOADING WORK ORDER with specific components (stuffing sequence, securing, figures). It distinguishes from siblings by detailing what is produced, and adds context that it's decision support, not certification.

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 explains where to feed the output (WES/TMS, robotic palletiser, worker sheet), indicating when to use it. It also clarifies that it's not a certification, advising to verify in own portal. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like plan_load.

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 states the tool lists equipment, which is clearly a read operation, and specifies what fields are returned (dimensions and payload). However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, performance characteristics, or whether the list is exhaustive.

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 20 words, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient and contains no extraneous information.

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 has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return content (dimensions and payload). It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does, though it could mention if the list is paginated or ordered.

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 coverage is 100% (one optional parameter 'category' with enum values). The description merely repeats 'Optional category filter' from the schema without adding new semantics or usage details. Baseline of 3 applies since schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('standard container, truck, ULD and pallet types') with concrete details (internal dimensions and max payload). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like plan_load or suggest_containers, which are about planning rather than listing.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to see available equipment with dimensions and payload), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It thoroughly discloses behaviors: cargo type influences loading logic (hex-nesting for drums, top-loading for big bags), omission of equipmentCode triggers auto-sizing, and the difference between production and demo API keys. No contradictions or omissions.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states outputs, second explains cargo type realism, third discusses API key and auto-sizing. No wasted words.

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 and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains return values and key behaviors. It covers inputs, outputs, and special cases like API key modes. However, it omits error handling or limits (e.g., max items), which would make it fully complete.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. For example, it explains that 'drum/cylinder/roll hex-nest' and 'bigbag/sack load on top, never crushed', and clarifies the effect of omitting equipmentCode. These enrich understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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: 'Compute a 3D load plan for cargo into a container or truck', specifying the verb and resource. It lists key outputs (containers used, utilization, centre of gravity, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_equipment and suggest_containers by being the core computation tool.

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 this tool (e.g., 'Omit equipmentCode to auto right-size') and mentions API key behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it vs. siblings, nor does it list alternative tools for specific scenarios, which would earn a 5.

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 exist, so description must disclose behavior. It states it's a 'quick estimate' implying no modification, but does not specify output format, any side effects, or limitations (e.g., max cargo size). Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance with alternative. No redundant information; efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), description covers purpose and usage context well. Lacks explicit output format but sufficient for a straightforward estimation tool. Minor gap in completeness.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (volumeM3 and weightKg) with 100% coverage. Description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming they are total cargo values. Baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool takes total cargo volume and weight and suggests container types and quantities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool plan_load by specifying it's a quick estimate rather than an exact, dimension-aware plan.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (quick volume/weight estimate) and when to use the alternative plan_load (exact plan with utilization, CoG, securing). Provides clear guidance on choosing between the two.

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