takeoff_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses 'Numbers only' (output form), clarifies it does not show drawings, and provides detailed coordinate system and scaling info (image px at render scale 2.0, origin top-left, y down). This goes well beyond typical 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?

A compact three-sentence description with zero waste. It front-loads the core totals, then clarifies the tool's non-visual nature, and ends with precise coordinate context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description completely covers the tool's purpose, scope, and relevant coordinate system. It is self-sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 adds no parameter-specific semantics (none needed), but does provide contextual detail about sheet payloads and coordinate space that indirectly aids understanding of any output.

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 returns per-condition totals (SF, LF, EA, SY with/without waste) and grand totals, explicitly aligning with the Report's rules. It distinguishes itself from export_marked_pdf by noting that the visual deliverable is that other tool, 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 explicitly points to export_marked_pdf as the tool that SHOWS the work on drawings, implying this tool is for numbers-only output. It does not explicitly mention when to use export_report, but the reference to 'the Report's numbers' provides context. This is clear guidance though not exhaustive.

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