debim_cost_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral traits about the output — that it is "minimal" and filtered to actively-used materials — but says nothing about permissions, file-writing behavior, or determinism. It adds some value beyond structured fields but leaves the operational profile thin.

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 tight two-line statement with the verb and deliverable front-loaded and no filler. Only the awkward line break interrupts otherwise clean structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, an undocumented required parameter, and no guidance on how this template relates to the downstream debim_cost workflow, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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% for the single required parameter manifest_yaml, and the description never mentions or explains it. The agent must guess that the manifest represents the building model input. With coverage this low, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 ("Generate") and resource ("project-scoped price catalog YAML template"), and scopes it precisely to materials/items actively used by the building model. This differentiates it reasonably from siblings like debim_cost, though it never explicitly names which sibling it complements.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The scoping clause ("based only on materials actively used") implies it should be run against a live model, but the agent must infer when this template is the right call versus debim_cost or debim_qto.

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