Calculate cross-sectional area by sampling elevations along a profile line against a baseline for cut/fill and quantity takeoffs.
Sample elevated points along a profile line and compute the section area against a baseline elevation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_offset | No | ||
| profile_line_id | Yes | ||
| sample_point_ids | No | ||
| baseline_elevation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether the computation is read-only, what permissions are needed, how many points are sampled or at what spacing, error behavior for missing/invalid profile lines, or performance limits. 'Sample elevated points' hints at interpolation but leaves the actual behavior opaque.
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?
A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and mechanism with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and behavioral detail.
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 computation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits what the result represents (units, sign convention for fill vs cut), how the optional parameters affect sampling, prerequisites, and error cases.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'profile line' and 'baseline elevation', corresponding to the two required parameters, but never explains max_offset or sample_point_ids, which are two of the four parameters. Half the parameters are left semantically undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('compute the section area') with the mechanism ('sample elevated points along a profile line') and the reference frame ('against a baseline elevation'). It is clearly distinguishable from the nearest siblings compute_cut_fill_volume and compute_grid_surface_volume, though it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from them.
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 the prerequisite (a profile line must exist, points are sampled along it), which gives implicit context for when the tool applies. However, it never states when-to-use versus alternatives like compute_cut_fill_volume or when-not to use it. Guidance is inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.