pallet_plan

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is indicative (not a stow guarantee), capped by weight/height, and details limitations like crush strength, interlocking, and overhang. It also mentions premium pricing (pay per call). This is highly 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 dense but not overly verbose; it front-loads the main purpose and then efficiently covers inputs, outputs, comparisons, limitations, and pricing. Every sentence adds value, though slightly long for a tool description.

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 complex tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all input semantics, output computation, trade-offs, limitations, and pricing. It is self-contained and fully contextual.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context on how inputs are used (e.g., 'best layer pattern from both case orientations + pinwheel × layers'), but does not significantly extend the schema's own parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 palletization across the full chain, computes cases per pallet, pallets per container, cube utilization, and contrasts with floor-loaded. It distinguishes itself from a 'box→container load optimizer', likely a sibling tool, making its unique purpose very clear.

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 specifies required inputs (case size, pallet standard, container) and outputs, indicating when to use the tool. It contrasts with floor-loaded and mentions the trade-off, but does not explicitly list alternative tool names or state when not to use it. Still, it provides solid guidance.

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