Extrabold Tools Gridfinity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, return format, or prerequisites. It only mentions creating a URL, but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what the URL looks like, or any potential side effects. The absence of any additional behavioral detail leaves significant uncertainty.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and every word earns its place. It avoids irrelevant details and is appropriately concise.

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?

Despite the tool's high complexity (39 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description only states its purpose and one alternative. It omits essential context such as how settings are provided, what the generated URL contains, or any prerequisites. This falls well short of what is needed for a tool with this parameter 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 3%, and the tool has 39 parameters with no required ones. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'exact baseplate settings', which is too vague to help an agent map user requests to specific fields. This is a major gap given the large schema.

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 identifies the resource ('shareable Extrabold Tools Gridfinity baseplate URL'), which clearly states what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling generate_gridfinity_grid by explicitly noting when that tool should be used instead.

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 provides an explicit alternative: 'Use generate_gridfinity_grid when the user asks for a grid by rows and columns.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus a close sibling, fulfilling the usage guideline requirement without ambiguity.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavior: automatic build-plate splitting when the baseplate does not fit. However, it does not describe the output format, side effects, or other operational details, leaving notable gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and then the essential usage guidance. It is concise, scannable, and does not repeat information already available in the schema.

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 — 25 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema — the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the return value is, how to obtain a drawer preset ID (via find_gridfinity_drawer_presets), or how the many optional parameters affect the result. It only covers the high-level split behavior.

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 16%, so the description must compensate for the low coverage. It adds meaning by connecting drawerPresetId, measuredDimensions, and printerBuildVolume to the drawing-workflow and explaining the build volume's role in splitting. However, most optional parameters (tolerance, magnet options, baseplateType, etc.) are not addressed, leaving many semantics unexplained.

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: 'Generate a Gridfinity baseplate sized to a known drawer preset.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_gridfinity_baseplate_url and generate_gridfinity_grid by focusing on baseplate generation from a preset.

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 advises supplying measured drawer dimensions when available and the printer build volume, and notes that build-plate splitting is automatic when the baseplate doesn't fit. This gives clear context for when and how to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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 full burden. It does disclose the primary action and output (generating a grid and returning dimensions/URL), which is adequate for a non-mutating generator. However, it omits any detail about constraints, defaults, error behavior, or whether an external service call occurs, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 with no redundant information. Each phrase is meaningful: the action, input, and output are all stated clearly in a compact form.

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 high complexity (25 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It doesn't mention that most parameters are optional, what the defaults are, or the exact structure of the returned dimensions and URL. The agent is left uncertain about how to configure the request or interpret the response.

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 description adds meaning to the two required parameters by explicitly stating 'by columns and rows' and implying that the resulting dimensions are in millimeters. With 60% schema coverage and 25 parameters, many parameters (e.g., baseplateType, magnetHeight, tolerance) are not addressed in the description, but the schema provides partial descriptions. The description adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 ('Generate') and identifies the exact resource ('Gridfinity baseplate grid') along with the key inputs ('by columns and rows'). It also clearly states the return value ('calculated millimeter dimensions and a shareable Extrabold Tools URL'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The phrase 'by columns and rows' implies the user already knows grid dimensions, but there is no mention of exclusions or referral to sibling tools such as get_gridfinity_grid_questions or create_gridfinity_baseplate_url, leaving the agent without decision support.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core action without explaining statefulness, how parameters influence the returned questions, side effects, or output format. The phrase 'using Extrabold Tools setting descriptions and dependencies' is cryptic and adds no concrete behavioral detail.

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, but it relies on vague jargon like 'Extrabold Tools setting descriptions and dependencies' that obscures clarity. It is short, yet not effectively front-loaded with useful 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?

This is a complex tool with 24 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must explain a great deal. It only states the high-level action and fails to cover return format, state behavior, parameter roles, or relationships to sibling tools—severely inadequate.

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 24 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description names none of them. No parameter meanings beyond raw schema types/enums are provided, and the vague reference to 'setting descriptions and dependencies' does not help map any of the 24 parameters to behavior.

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 the specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource ('next Gridfinity baseplate configuration questions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that generate baseplates, drawings, or URLs. The focus on asking questions is unique among the listed siblings.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'next' implies an iterative workflow, but there is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how it relates to siblings like generate_gridfinity_grid.

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