debim_qto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It claims deterministic output and lists result units, which is useful, but says nothing about required input validity, failure modes, permissions, or whether output depends on a prior validation step.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, followed by a compact enumeration of outputs. No filler sentences, though the output listing is partially redundant given an output schema exists.

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 restated (they are, harmlessly). However, for a single-param tool whose only input is an undocumented manifest, the description leaves the agent without enough context on input requirements or workflow position.

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% and the single parameter manifest_yaml is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains what the manifest is, what format/structure it expects, or where it comes from, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate Quantitative Take-Off (QTO) material quantities deterministically', and enumerates the exact quantities produced. It is clearly distinct in substance from siblings like debim_cost, debim_validate, and debim_compile_ifc, though it never names them explicitly to route the agent.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., whether the manifest must first pass debim_validate), and no mention of alternatives such as debim_cost. The agent is left to infer the position of this tool in the workflow.

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