Extrabold Tools Gridfinity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the outcome (a shareable URL) and input class (baseplate settings), but does not disclose whether any external call, validation, or side effect occurs. For a simple URL-creation tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 40 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain URL output format, default behavior, how to handle nested settings, or when to ask follow-up questions, so an agent cannot reliably populate a correct request.

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 only 3% across 40 parameters, and the description offers no per-parameter meaning beyond 'exact baseplate settings'. This vagueness does not help an agent map user requests to the nested objects (printer, dimensions, gridAlignment, edgeConnectorSides) or honor defaults.

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 ('Create') and names the exact resource ('shareable Extrabold Tools Gridfinity baseplate URL') along with input ('exact baseplate settings'). It explicitly contrasts with generate_gridfinity_grid, satisfying sibling differentiation.

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?

It tells when to prefer generate_gridfinity_grid ('when the user asks for a grid by rows and columns'). It does not mention other siblings like generate_gridfinity_drawer_baseplate or get_gridfinity_grid_questions, so the guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some behavioral context: 'usable' implies filtering or validation of presets, and 'exact' indicates precision matching. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or how results are ordered. It also does not clarify the meaning of 'usable' or whether partial matches are allowed. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 that front-loads the primary action and resource. It is concise and to the point, mentioning search criteria without unnecessary elaboration. Every segment earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for understanding return values. It does not state what the tool returns or how to interpret results (e.g., a list of preset IDs, names, or full details). It also does not clarify when to prefer this finder over the sibling generator tools. For a search tool, this is a significant gap.

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 schema covers the 'query' parameter with a clear description, so the description's repetition of search fields ('by product name, brand, product line, dimensions, or article number') adds no new value. The 'limit' parameter has no description in the schema and none in the overall description. With 50% schema coverage, the description should have compensated, but it does not explain the purpose or behavior of the limit parameter (e.g., max results, pagination).

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 what the tool does: 'Find usable Extrabold Tools drawer presets and exact Eurobox or KLT models'. It specifies the resource (drawer presets and exact models) and the search criteria (product name, brand, product line, dimensions, article number). This distinguishes it from sibling generator tools like create_gridfinity_baseplate_url and generate_gridfinity_grid, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a search/find use case and contextualizes the tool as a lookup. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. For instance, it does not say 'use the generator tools to create new presets'. The context from sibling names suggests this tool is for finding existing presets, but explicit guidance is missing. Still, the intended usage is clear from the verb 'Find'.

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, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention that it automatically enables build-plate splitting when the baseplate does not fit, which is a key behavior. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it writes files, or any side effects or permissions needed, leaving significant gaps.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place by conveying the key purpose and the auto-splitting behavior. However, given the tool's complexity, a slightly longer description could be justified without violating conciseness.

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?

This is a complex tool with 26 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers only the high-level idea and a single behavioral trait (splitting). It does not explain how outputs are returned, what the default values imply, or how the many optional parameters affect the result, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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 only 19%, so the description must compensate. It adds context for drawerPresetId, measuredDimensions, and printerBuildVolume, but the other 20+ parameters (e.g., tolerance, baseplateType, magnet settings) are left unexplained in both schema and description. For a tool with 26 parameters, this is insufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('Gridfinity baseplate') with clear scope ('sized to a known drawer preset'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on drawer-based generation and automatic splitting, whereas siblings like create_gridfinity_baseplate_url or generate_gridfinity_grid serve different purposes.

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?

Gives clear context: use this tool when you have a known drawer preset, supply measured dimensions and printer build volume, and it automatically handles splitting. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an AI to select it appropriately given the sibling list.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool calculates dimensions and returns a URL, but does not mention side effects, error handling, network calls for URL generation, or any constraints on inputs. The behavior is not deeply 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core function and expected outputs. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and no space is wasted on redundant 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 26 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand invocation context. The description omits important configuration details, such as how printerBuildVolume affects splitting or what results the URL provides, making it incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 only 62%, so the description should help explain parameters beyond the schema. However, the description only mentions columns and rows, which are already documented in the schema. It does not add meaning for the many other parameters like tolerance, baseplateType, or printerBuildVolume, nor does it clarify the output dimensions calculation.

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 Gridfinity baseplate grid based on columns and rows, and specifies the return values (millimeter dimensions and a shareable URL). This makes the primary purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools like create_gridfinity_baseplate_url or generate_gridfinity_drawer_baseplate.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or alternative scenarios. There is no indication of when columns/rows generation is preferred over other grid-related tools.

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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return the next questions' without explaining return format, statefulness, side effects, or the meaning of 'setting descriptions and dependencies'. This is insufficient given the tool's complexity.

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 no wasted words, but the awkward phrasing ('Extrabold Tools setting descriptions and dependencies') makes it cryptic rather than concise. It is short but sacrifices clarity.

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?

This tool has 25 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not address how parameters affect behavior, what the questions contain, or how this fits into the broader Gridfinity workflow. It is severely incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 for its 25 parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The generic phrase 'using Extrabold Tools setting descriptions and dependencies' does not explain any of the parameters or how they influence the output, leaving agents completely in the dark.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the next Gridfinity baseplate configuration questions'), distinguishing it from sibling generation tools. However, 'using Extrabold Tools setting descriptions and dependencies' is vague and does not clarify what these questions are or how they relate to the configuration.

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 a conversational or iterative configuration workflow by saying 'next ... questions to ask', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like generate_gridfinity_grid, nor does it mention prerequisites or ordering. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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