PlacePack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing the tool as a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing that it validates the size spec and returns specific outputs (URL, filename, Markdown, HTML), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and output. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 lacking an output schema, the description clearly enumerates the return artifacts (URL, filename, Markdown, HTML), which is a key completion aspect. It also mentions validation, covering the core behavior. However, it does not explain how the size spec syntax works beyond examples in the schema, and some parameter semantics are missing, leaving minor gaps.

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 57%, leaving some parameters (format, padding, strokeWidth) without descriptions. The tool description only mentions 'size spec' without elaborating on the parameters, so it does not compensate for the missing schema details. The schema itself covers some parameters 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Validate one size spec and return an embeddable PlacePack image URL, filename, Markdown, and HTML.' It specifies the resource (image URL) and differentiates from siblings like placepack_create_pack and placepack_list_presets by focusing on generating a single URL with multiple output formats.

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 usage by mentioning validation and the returned artifacts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Since sibling tools exist, more direct guidance would be helpful, but the core use case is inferable from the description.

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?

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and open-world; the description adds behavioral detail about validation and returning a manifest, plus the optional base64 ZIP behavior. It does not contradict annotations, and the functional behavior is reasonably transparent, though it does not mention error handling on invalid specs.

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 with front-loaded purpose and no fluff. The description is extremely concise while covering the primary behavior and an optional feature.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core return (manifest of URLs) and the optional ZIP, but it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, how a preset interacts with sizes, and what happens on validation failure. The description is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 67%, so most parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema—it just restates 'multiple size specs or one preset' and 'inline a small SVG ZIP', both already present in the schema descriptions. Score is baseline 3 for medium coverage.

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 ('Validate ... and return') and identifies the exact resource (manifest of PlacePack image URLs). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings: placepack_create_image creates a single image, while placepack_list_presets lists presets.

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 usage by stating 'multiple size specs or one preset', but it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools or provide when-not/when-to-use guidance. It is unclear whether this should be preferred over create_image for any multi-size need.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying what data will be returned (presets with labels, specs, and default formats), which goes beyond the annotation alone. No side effects are mentioned, but the read-only annotation mitigates the need.

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 that clearly states the tool's purpose and return contents without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (labels, specs, default formats). It lacks explicit usage guidance, but for a simple list operation, this is largely sufficient. The read-only annotation and sibling context round out the picture.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than repeating parameter details, which is unnecessary here.

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' and clearly identifies the resource as 'PlacePack size presets', further detailing what is included (labels, specs, default formats). This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like placepack_create_image and placepack_create_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?

The description implies this tool is for retrieving preset information when creating a pack or image, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the create tools. Since the siblings are all 'create' operations, the context implies a list-before-create flow, but this is not clearly articulated.

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