scan_calibrate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses mode alternatives and the origin_px default (bottom-left), but says nothing about whether calibration overwrites prior values, persistence, or effects on later operations—material gaps for a mutation tool.

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 dense paragraph front-loaded with the core purpose and mode options; every clause is functional. The parenthetical 'scale=<denominator>' and paper note are slightly cryptic but compact.

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 9 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the calibration modes well but leaves 'page' behavior, mutation/overwrite semantics, and any result info unaddressed—gaps that matter for a state-changing 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?

Schema coverage is 0% across 9 params, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains p1, p2, distance_mm, px_per_mm, scale, paper, and origin_px, covering 7 of 9. It omits any meaning for 'page' (relevant for multi-page PDFs) and leaves scan_id implicit.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Define how pixels map to real mm.' An agent can tell this is a calibration operation, distinct from conversion tools like scan_px_to_mm. No sibling is named, so it stops just short of explicit differentiation.

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?

It lays out the three mutually exclusive calibration modes (p1/p2+distance_mm, px_per_mm, or scale+paper), which is genuine invocation guidance. It does not say when this tool is needed versus scan_open/scan_px_to_mm or what prerequisites must exist first.

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