pack_cargo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool submits an async job and waits 5-30 seconds, mentions sandbox mode for non-persistent testing, and explains the return metrics. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist) and adequately informs about the tool's behavior.

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, with every sentence adding value. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with key behavioral details and a practical tip. 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 complexity (7 parameters, nested items, async, no output schema), the description provides a good overview of the layout output and metrics. It covers the async wait time and the prerequisite. While it could detail error handling or the exact return structure, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as the meaning of output metrics (LDM, linear feet, etc.), units interpretation, and sandbox behavior. This helps the agent understand the purpose of parameters and expected results.

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 optimizes cargo loading, returns a physically valid layout and billing metrics. It is distinct from its siblings (check_job, list_vehicles) which handle job status and vehicle listing respectively.

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 using list_vehicles first if unsure about the vehicle code, providing a clear prerequisite. It also mentions the async nature and typical wait time. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond the sibling hint.

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